Racist, misogynistic drug addict.

If we had tougher laws against drug offenders, Limbaugh might be in jail.  You ever thought of that?

Welcome Back, Rush Limbaugh here. The Excellence in Alcatraz Network......

Does Limbaugh have an equally offensive word for blacks who fight for equality ?  Does he call them n*gganazi's or something ?

We have harse penalties for drug offenses--as long as the offender is a minority.

 

I certainly advocate equal harsh treatment across the board.  Pleae join me.

nope

I'll second that.

The harsh world of the conservative has created a harsh world.

Sorry, Bruce but despite Rush's weakness of the flesh I do believe even he can rehabilitate his earthbound form. I believe making people like him suffer for their addictions only drives people deeper into madness.

I'm in favor of the three strikes rule.  Offer rehab for the first two drug offenses, providing there aren't other crimes involved that would need to be dealt with separately.  However, if a person cannot get clean and is convicted of a third drug offense, then society has done it's fair share of helping IMO and it's time to move on to the next phase, which should be incarceration in my view.

Not even close. Drug addiction is a physical illness, not an "offense," and the only option should be medical treatment.

You may as well have a "three strikes" rule for the flu. 

big difference in contracting the flu and going out and buying crack. One chooses to inject themselves with poison or inhale cocaine. I do agree the consequence of a poor choice is in the end a physical illness but what is the consequence for being non compliant with treatment and continually breaking the law? A pat on the back while telling someone "it's o.k. you're just sick". IMO, incarceration is a viable consequence for those who continually refuse treatment.  

The problem is, most of the time incarceration for drug addicts DOESN'T WORK.  Never has, never will.  There's little or no treatment or rehabilitation in prison.  Those behind bars return to society the same as they went in.  Treatment and rehab at least gives them a chance at changing their behavior. 

Incarceration works for its intended purpose, which is separating someone from society.  The treatment phase is what rehab is for, and I certainly would encourage people who find themselves there to take it seriously and get themselves healed.

"Incarceration works for its intended purpose, which is separating someone from society."

Why seperate a pot head from society? Why incarcerate an addict if their only offense is getting high?

If they're out hurting other people because of their habits, sure we have to protect ourselves fom them and put them away. But putting a harmless addict in jail is a bit silly given the humane alternative of treatment and rehab. If rehab doesn't stick and they're still out getting high how are you harmed in the long run?

It's difficult to make a blanket statement about it, but at this point in American history it has been determined that certain drugs should not be legal for consumption for a variety of reasons, including personal endangerment and public endangerment.  I believe statistics would show that people who abuse illegal drugs are in a high risk category for causing other problems.

While I'm sure there are some abusers that would not trend toward those statistics, society is looking at "likely" outcomes and taking appropriate actions to protect innocent citizens.

Talking about stats and behavioral likelihood is a bit of a non-answer to the specific question about the individual.

And the comment about likely outcomes may make sense to a person who bought into the conservative pre-emptive war argument but to lock-up a person for getting high based on thier potential behavior is hardly appropriate.

In the exact scenario you described, I agree with you.  That's for the judge to determine, but I like the 3 strikes guideline for the court.

I meant to write earlier that I hope my post didn't seem as jerky to you as it did to me.

I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary.  ;-)

Enjoy the long weekend.

nope

 

Feminazis...? Just a couple of weeks agao Limbaugh was speaking sympathetically, almost affectionately, to feminists, telling them that the men who run the Democrat (sic) Party were stealing the nomination from Hillary Clinton. Why the change of heart, Rush? Oh, I know...you're just an A-hole.

You left out intellectual lightweight. You have to be real stupid trying to pass off a 10 year old paper written by a high schooler as proof of Obama's "liberal" positions.

Snoop, I'm sure you must be taking El Rushbo out of context...as, most assuredly, I must have done, as well.  ;>)

But I'm not taking this piece of republican racism out of context. Perhaps they thought it might slip by under the radar?

Snoop,

Perhaps you'd care to comment on the number of Democrats (10%-20%?) who say they won't vote for Obama if he is the nominee. Are they racist too?  

Are they racist too?  

Perhaps they are...

Not necessarily, same as there are plenty of republicans who won't vote for him either, and it won't be because of racism. But the link provided by Snoopy is downright awful racism at best, and possibly illegal. I'm sure whoever put that little gem out there has already received a visit from the secret service and all.

Umm, just because you don't agree with Obama doesn't make you a racist. Nobody is saying that at ALL. Of course, that is the line that you guys would want to put out there though.

Perhaps you'd care to comment on the number of Democrats (10%-20%?) who say they won't vote for Obama if he is the nominee. Are they racist too?

I wouldn't go there if I were you, AA.  Remember that thousands of racists left the Democratic Party for the GOP back in the '60s, following Strom Thurmond's lead.  And racist groups like the KKK and the CCC are predominantly Republican.

On the few right wing sites I've been to, I've actually seen variations of the following:

"If Obamby is President I feel it is my duty to do everything in my power to take him out."

I kid you not...I've seen it quite a few times, usually with harsher language

DB,

Got any links?  I think you are making that up. I find without the link that you are guilty of your own attempted assassination.  Character assassination.  ;-) 

Who knows? It could be you posting on those sites?  

You nailed that one. Another screaming example of what has become the right wing base of the republican party. They sure got that right to free speech (only for them) down, don't they?

Oh, lookey! Another example of right wing hipocracy! Gee, you can put up racist posters, and scream hate speech all in the name of freedom of the press. But if you dare speak out against Bill O'Reilly, you lose your job! Such hipocracy from the haters of free speech...

Great story, Snoop...thanks.

Irony,

Snoop's link to those racists did not say anything about any party affiliation, Democratic or Republican.

To make the jump that it is the Republicans who are racist when 10%-20% of Democratic voters, won't vote for Obama, is a very weak attempt at projection. Especially since the article states that the offenders are Keystone State Skinheads.

In case you didn't know it, they are white nationalists and take their cues from social Darwinism and National Socialism. Both of these ideologies are on the left and hence are more closely aligned with progressive thought than conservative thought. 

You can do better snoop.  

Irony,

The second link does not say anything about O'Reilly having any influence over the firing of a Comcast CN8 reporter. 

Might it simply be he acted unprofessionally by publicly calling O'Reilly a "mental case" and "morally unacceptable" to give O'Reilly an award?   

Snoop is really stretching today. 

Neither National Socialism nor social Darwinism are leftist.  The first is a clever way to try and sneak in that bizarre Jonah Goldberg Nazis=Liberals theory past people who don't realize that it's the more formal name for the Nazi Party.  Naziism is its own thing and can be said to have elements of both Right and Left philosophies to it but I really don't think it can be truthfully compared to either liberalism or conservatism.  Social DArwinism isn't really a political belief at all, but the basic tenet of "Everyone for himself and let the best man win" have far more in common with modern conservatism than it does with liberalism.

AA: National Socialism was a party of the German political right, with deep ties to other rightwing parties and paramilitaries (e.g.; the DNVP, the Stahlhelm, the Freikorps, etc.) even though, for obvious reasons, they had their differences with some of the old guard monarchical conservatives. Hitler was supported early on by conservatives like Ludendorff (who later had a falling out with them) and eventually came to power in collusion with political conservatives like Hindenburg and Hugenberg. The Nazis formally linked arms with other rightwing groups of the time in the Harzburg Front.

 

Hitler was supported by the German military and industry (Krupp, IG Farben, etc.) as both a weapon against Communism and against the Weimar Republic. One of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was to crush the trade unions, something that German industry, broadly speaking, had wanted for years. While there were strains of Nazism that were genuinely socialist in the earlier phases of the movement (most notably revolving around the Strasser brothers), this impulse was forcibly quashed by Hitler both before and during the Night of the Long Knives.   

 

Personally I don't much care for Hitler comparisons (as much as I dislike Bush, I've never called him a Nazi), but Rush's comparison of feminists to Nazis -- the Nazis were virtually without exception male supremacists -- is a prime example of Limbaugh's dishonesty.

If you believe the exit polls from Kentucky, it shows about 20% are. That is just the 20% who would admit it. In the end I believe it will all kind of equal itslef out as there are plenty of hard right conservatives who won't vote for McCain and there are plenty of Ron Paul supporters who will swing towards Bob Barr. Seems to me that it's you guys who have the biggest voting problem. Don't worry though AA, I'm sure Obama won't make most of you guys pray to Allah and convert to radical black theology.   

Achris,

You were doing well up until that last sentence.

However, even thought it didn't make sense, you scored well on the snarkiness scale. :-)  

Deflecting again, AA? I notice your position sounds an awful lot like "But what about them over there?"

Totally avoided making any comment on the republicans. Sneaky, I'll give you that...

Snoop,

Funny I thought the digression to whacko racists was a deflection on your part in order to avoid the issue. After all, it is the Democratic primary and the Democrats who are voting.

What is interesting to me is that the constant meme that runs through progressive posters here is that the Republicans are home to racists. Nobody ever says such things about Democrats however this primary is showing that there is a very large segment of the Democrats who won't be voting for Obama. Is it racism? If so, then it seems that all the moral high ground so many here seem to revel in, is really an illusion. I'd venture to say the Democratic Party has been the party of closet racists all along. 

I was hoping some progressive would give me reason to think so many Democratic Party voters are not voting for Obama for something other than racism. 

You're full of it.  Just because 20% of WV or KY DemocratIC voters won't vote for Obama doesn't make a large part of the DemocratIC party racist.  There is a difference between 20% of Democrats in WV or KY and 20% of the general population of the United States who identify themselves as Democrats.  Your attempt to paint Democrats in certain states as racist is nothing more than transparent projection. 

Given that, there are some Democrats who are racists.  Most of the Democrats who are racists left the DemocratIC party in the 60's (as someone stated above).  There are racists in both parties - the majority of which are members of the Republican party.  More generally, Democrats celebrate race and would like to move toward racial harmony.  It's the Republican party that has done whatever it can to hold people of color back, not the DemocratIC party.

Are they racist too?  

The percentage who said race was the reason they wouldn't vote for Obama are racist.

I think I heard that. Oxy said that Clinton was getting screwed and therefore the women he calls feminazis were also getting screwed.

Never being one to disagree with anyone or mock them but this unrepentive drug ADDICT is lower than snail s#it. I want info from his Ex-wives. Where are they? I'd like to see his divorce agreement.

What are the odds of a controversial celebrity having three amicable divorces where not one ex-wife has publicly trashed him? Hmmmm...I'll bet the hush money is substantial.

Or they are too embarassed to want to be connected to this phony. I hope none of them brought another RUSH onto this world.

 

Or they are too embarassed to want to be connected to this phony. I hope none of them brought another RUSH onto this world.

They didn't.  I suppect than none of Rush's marriage were ever consummated.....

I hope none of them brought another RUSH onto this world.

That would assume that Limbaugh actually had sex with one of these women.

"The way he's been puffed up here with the magical, messiah-type message with no criticism allowed."

Is he talking about Obama or McCain?

That's all the right-wing slime machine has left to say when a Dem comes along that draws unheard of crowds.  They can't win on the issues, so it's an all out war against his character.

If you sat down on a bus and heard the man next to you talking like this you'd start wishing that the budget of your state provided more in-patient services for the mentally disturbed.  But somehow Rush gets paid for it.

I don't think being a racist/sexist automatically means you're mentally disturbed.  If that were the case, we'd have overcrowding in our mental institutions in addition to our jails.

Drug addiction and pedophilia, on the other hand...

And frequent solo trips to the Caribbean, loaded with Viagra, to personally address "the crisis in young man-boy education."

It's not the racism and the sexism that make Rush seem like he may need the help of a mental health professional, it's the belief in gigantic global conspiracies with no shred of evidence.

Ok, I'm a man.  Always have been, always will be.  There is not a crisis of "young man-boy education" (sounds like he's channeling NAMBLA.)  Perhaps he is in crisis.

OT I know, but has anyone else seen the Hagee comments about Hitler fulfilling the wishes of God?  I want to comment on that! 

I posted that Hagee comment in a thread about a week back.  He explains that the Jews were being punished by God for not accepting Jesus.  Who knew that Hitler was just an instrument of a vengeful, Christian God?

What's interesting to note is that the Zionists in Germany in the '30s were actually actively working with the new Nazi party to emigrate the Jewish population to Israel.  That part is fact.  War broke out and stopped the immigration of millions of Jews, and thus set-up the Nazi's to move on to exterminating them.  What this means pertaining to Christianity and the Christian God is certainly debatable, but in Hagee's little head, it's not that far from the truth.

Hagee says Hitler was fulfilling God's will. So, Hitler was an instrument of God, following God's command. So, either Hitler and God are both good, or they both embodied evil.

Of course Limbaugh is all wet where Obama is concerned, he has inspired many not because he is black, but because of his message, in my opinion.

Many on the right don't share my view, but I see his appeal to rid our politics and our partisan lifestyle from the poison that has infested our system and driven us to polar opposites of entrenchment.  He is honest, also my view, and from that honesty breeds heartfelt compromise and involved responsibility for common goals we all share, irrespective of policy differences.

That being said, if the Democrats screw this up and don't heal the racial and gender divisions that have surfaced in this primary regarding their candidates, they only have themselves to blame.  Their pandering to the constituents that Limbaugh outlined has come back to bite them, and fueled immeasurably by the way the Clintons have played the race card, and her victim card, often in this campaign.  They may very well come together and be wholly united come fall, it is most likely going to happen.....but to deny the hard feelings on many of their party members is to deny reality.

Many of you will disagree, but it's my opinion. 

Tommy, I completely agree.  It starts with Hillary conceding and ending this long slow Bataan death march to the White House. (HT Daily Show)

Well put, Tommy.  People such as yourself, who are able to think independently of political parties and their platforms, will be the key to our nation's healing, and the re-assertion of America's greatness.

Thanks Guys, and it's unconscionable the way she is now trying to change the rules in Florida and Michigan; just today she is basically trashing Obama by saying it's his own fault for removing his name from the Michigan ballot, when he was playing by the rules.  Her shamelessness knows no bounds, if she doesn't concede soon and stop this nonsense perhaps her and Bill's master plan of derailing the Obama campaign, and put her in place for 2012, will be a real possibility.

How some Democrats can still support her over Obama is mind-boggling.  Stunning.

Obama is gonna be a top notch candidate for the Dems. I agree with you, Hillary should just drop out now. She has turned delusional. The only way I'll ever respect her again is if she turns over her campaign coffers to Obama so he can get a huge bump up against McCain.

Snoop,

I wouldn't count her out yet. Obama hasn't secured the needed votes. There could be a Memorial Day surprise being offered up by Billary and Co.

Why do you think she is going soft lately. She is ratcheting down the rhetoric against Obama in order to gain back the black constituency when she wrestles the nomination away from Obama at the convention.  There is no doubt in my mind Hillary has a trick or two up her pantsuit sleeve. :-)   Will it be enough? We'll see.

IT'S NOT MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE FOR HER TO WIN!!!

There. I've said it. Again. There won't be any "surprise".

Funny how Senator Clinton wants to count Florida and Michigan, now... When they voted earlier than they were supposed to, she didn't say a word about it then...

Exactly Mag.

Especially when Dodd and Kucinich DID bring the issue up at the time. She didn't because she figured she'd have the nomination in the bag after Super Tuesday, so Florida and Michigan wouldn't matter.

Yet another blunder in a long list of blunders...

Knowlies,

It is amazing to me how I have to keep informing you of what your own Democrats are doing.

Howard Dean, according to Terry McAullife,  disenfranchised both states completely when that was not in the rules for him to do so. If that is true, then Hillary has a point. 

McCaullife also says when Dean disenfranchised both States that it made the agreement by the candidates no longer operative.  

DNC members from Michigan and Florida have filed challenges with the DNC to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. The process being followed to adjudicate these challenges is completely consistent with the DNC rules.

In Florida, Clinton and Obama both appeared on the ballot; in Michigan, Obama's name (by his own choice, yes) did not.

THE DNC HAS told outside parties that the Rules and Bylaws Committe is free to do what it wants with the challenges. That said, the RBC is not free from questions about its institutional politics. If it overturns its sanctions in their entirety, it puts into jeopardy its own legitimacy and that of the Democratic National Committee. 

If it accepts the logic of the challenges and awards to the candidates half of their Michigan and Florida delegations, it will face the opprobrium of the Obama campaign and its legion of supporters (and donors). If it turns down the challenges, it may be accused of kicking the can down the road.

In late June, the credentials committee of the DNC takes jurisdiction over delegation matters, and when they do, everything litigated in May will be relitigated.

The problem is not with the voters but with the Democratic Party big-wigs. Obama has blocked efforts for re-vote. Dean and the Party are not dealing with Michigan and Florida, and Hillary is being driven out of the race because of it.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it looks to me like Hillary has a good chance of getting at least half of Michigan and Florida's delegates seated. 

ps. Most of the cut and paste is from Hillary's campaign website in a section called "The Fact Hub".

 She is ratcheting down the rhetoric against Obama in order to gain back the black constituency when she wrestles the nomination away from Obama at the convention.

LOL 

AA, you're knowledge of African Americans is showing if you ASSume Hillary's "ratcheting down her rhetoric" will send African Americana running in her direction. With Hillary polling 5% of the African American vote Hillary's "ratcheting down" would be like fighting a wildfire with a garden hose. Hillary and Bill created their own problems with African American voters and only time will tell if it can be repaired, simply ratcheting down" will not work.

Pearl,

If Hillary gets the nomination, and you are skeptical that she can get the black vote, do you think the black voters will sit out the election or will they go over to McCain?

The only way I'll ever respect her again is if she turns over her campaign coffers to Obama so he can get a huge bump up against McCain.

What campaign coffers? She owes something like $20 million. She has dipped into her own pockets to keep the campaign going this long. Obama who has the least money in his own bank account has not had to loan himself money to keep chugging along. He has an almost unlimited number of small donors  who keep giving repeated donations.

I find it interesting that McCain, who has the most money of all the candidates in his family accounts, has not been able to tap his wife's fortune even when he was at the low point last year. I wonder how much Cindy McCain really wants him to win. She probably wants to life in the White House and to get waited on hand and foot. But she is not about to part with her inherited wealth to get there. All she has done is give him the cheap use of her private plane which is owned by some corporation not her.

Tommy,

Do you have any idea how Obama will replace the old political divisiveness? Have you heard any ideas on how he will do it?

Have you seen any evidence where Obama is willing to compromise his views?

I think by the time the election rolls around you'll see that the rhetoric does not match the policies.

Obama's only hope is he can fool most of the people all the time.  I think  it will be apparent by fall that he can't. His contrived outrage over Bush's remarks in the Knesset shows he is playing the victim card and demonizing his political opponents. How does that match with his promises? It is apparent to me that he is playing divisive politics in order to deflect that silly promise to meet with the world's dictators without preconditions if elected. McCain will chew him up on that issue.

Once you get beyond Obama's rhetoric, what do you have? 

Umm, maybe because he was the victim of a highly partisan attack by a sitting president in a foreign land? I mean, isn't it possible?

AA:

Your cynicism is cute ... but yes, there are many people who are sick and tired of the kind of politics that's been played over the past several decades .. by both sides, admittedly, but mainly by yours..

 I know you have a vested interest in maintaining the old ways ...  fear and division has worked so well for you guys in the past. But hey, Change is a comin.' You can either get on board or get run over. :) 

 

As for your old tired "what does Obama have?' line ... sorry. There are tons of official proposals and policies on his web site. Do some reading - something  besides refried right-wing talking points - and then come back and report what you find. 

 

We'll be holding our breath *sarcasm off* 

That's what kills me about these jokers like AA. They keep yammering on and on about Obama not having any policies. Not having any positions. I know that they know how to use the internet, it's not so hard to go and read his website is it? Is it too much to ask?

In the case for some right wingers on here, apparently it IS too much to ask.

They can read the website, of course, but if they are unable to understand the website they continue to insist that Obama has no policies.

Excellent point Magnolia. It just proves that there is no orginality of thought with "some people". I can tune in to any cable news cast and hear the same thing I have read here abut no policies. It is painfully obvious that "some people" are too damn lazy to check and make sure what their masters tell them is true.

This is also what happened when the democrats took Congress over, as well as when they were talking about troop withdrawals and such. The republicans kept harping, over and over again, that the Democrats had NO plan for removal of our troops from Iraq, which if anyone had actually bothered to look at Senatorial and Congressional websites, their plans were well spelled out for all to see.

I see this as a common tactic from right wingers, mostly because just because something is not placed directly in front of their noses, it must not exist. I have also seen this time and again when someone will post up a story that somehow supports their right wing worldview, and inevitably, they'll make some sort of comment about "I bet the NY Times won't put THIS story up..." Of course, as long as it's not from the WND, 10 times out of 10 times, the highly "liberal" NY Times does have said story.

It's called a search engine guys, learn how to use it. It can be your friend.

I also like how a lot of right wingers all harp on Obama about how there is no "substance" in his campaign speeches, how he's not giving us particulars about his plans and policies. I challenge anyone to go to a campaign event and tell me who, and where there are politicians who are giving detailed policy position speeches when they're out on the road doing stump speeches and things like that. NOBODY does it. Why? Because if they did, mostly people would be bored out of their ever loving minds.

Obama draws because he is an engaging public speaker. Not the crowd that he pulled in Oregon. When was the last time any politician drew in a crowd of over 70,000 to hear them make a speech? I don't think I remember that ever happening. That's amazing to me.

Last weekend a right wing relative of mine, who is also a FOX News devotee, told me that we don't know enough about Obama. I responded that if she heard that constantly from FOX, her sole source of news, I could see that she would say that. On the other hand, she knew practically nothing of McCain's serial flip-flopping or Cindy McCain's sordid history.

AA,

To answer your question, because I believe for many reasons that Obama is not just your typical politician who is knee-deep in rhetoric with lofty speeches of hope and change just to get elected.  If I did, or if I come to believe that is the case come this fall, I will be mistaken - as of this writing, I don't believe that.  Sure, maybe it's some blind faith, or a wish to cling to something new and not the same ole' politics of us vs. them.  I don't know.  

What I do know is how we cannot get much worse than we are now.  I am speaking of our mess in Iraq, our stature around the world, our internal squabbling over everything political in this country, our "hatred" for our political opponents, not to mention a myriad of other problems.  Bush has been a failure, McCain offers me nothing.  So what are we left with?

I will examine everything of course before I vote for whomever in the fall, but I will look beyond my own selfish self interest on policy and issues for what I believe is the greater good for the country, we need healing. 

"Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again."  --- Hillary Clinton, May 9th

Hillary disgusts me when she hauls out drivel like this.  It is selfish, it has racial connotations, and it serves no other practical purpose but to divide and splinter the Democratic voting base.

I forgot to mention, good post.  I can't really find anything to disagree with.

You know, Oregon has a 3% minority population.  Obama beat Clinton in almost every demographic: young, old, rural, urban, men, women.  That argument that she's putting forth is completely week.  And to use Kentucky as an example?  You can go ahead and paint Kentucky red for the general election, that's already not going to happen.

And I absolutely agree with you regarding Hillary.  It is horrible the way she is subtly slicing up her party for her own selfishishness. 

At this point, unless something drastic changes, I have every intention of voting for Obama for president, despite our vast policy disagreements, as I have said I would much rather support an honest liberal than a untrustworthy conservative - I have no love lost for McCain, he just doesn't impress me at all, we need better.

However, should Obama somehow pick Hillary for his VP slot, which I think is unlikely, but nevertheless, if he does, he will not get my vote.  I could never. 

OMG!  If I'm reading the tea leaves right, is the long sordid love fest with the clinton's finally coming to an end?  

All I can say, it's about time.  This divorce should have happened ten years ago.  Just think, if the left would have thrown Slicky under the bus when they should have, Mr. Gore would have taken over and would have probably been a shoe-in in '00.  

Shrillary is so power hungry (think Reese Witherspoons character in ELECTION) I would not put it past her (or bill) to try and scuttle this election so they have one more shot in '12.   

Yeah, because Bill did so bad for this country.

Get over it. Clinton was a rock solid president.

Every person in the running for President are what you would call power hungry. McCain. Obama. Clinton. They all want to win. They ALL want the most powerful political position in the world. I think you've really got to want it. Don't you? If you don't want it, and run for it, you get, Fred Thompson.

She swings...she misses.  The fast ball went right past you Mag...

Die hard clintonista's are jumping into the Obama life raft off the sinking SS Clinton.  The same die hards that Shrill was counting on because most are super delegates. Look no further than Gov Richardson, Sen Edwards, Kennedy and I could go on for days...

They were solidly in Shrills camp.  Me thinks the left has been looking for a way to cut the cord with camp clinton for years now, and this gives them cover.  

Now back to my original point.  Had you divorced bill when he deserved to be put out to pasture, Mr. Gore would have assumed the helm, for close to two years.  The '00 election would not have even been close.  Gore then goes on to do great liberal things and change the world one light bulb at a time.  Get it now?  

You have no one to blame for your travails but yourselves.  

I do agree with you on one respect.  Bill was a ROCK HARD prez!  Hard headed and well...

Do you know why Monica Lewinsky became a Republican?  The dems left a bad taste in her mouth!  HA HA!   

 

Bill was a solid President, and he did good for our country. Look where we were when he left office, and look where we are now. The proof is all there.

I never thought Hillary would be a good President, but I will vote for her if somehow she gets the nomination, which she won't. But if she did, I would cast my ballot for her.

The people who have gone over to Obama, or endorsed him, were never "in the Clinton camp" as they never said that they would endorse her. Ala Ted Kennedy, Richardson, and others.

Gore lost mostly because of the way he was portrayed in the media as a liar and a braggart, which of course, were mis-truths. And anyway, if the Florida ballot recount had not been stopped by a highly republican Supreme Court, we would have had a President Gore in 2000. I mean, the country was so "torn" that half of us voted for Gore in 2000, and almost half of us voted for Kerry in 2004. Bush won both times by the smallest of margins. Anyway, if the Supreme Court had stuck to their "state's rights" views, as they have for literally everything else in recent history (last 10-15 years), Gore probably would have won in 2000.

Gore is much more attractive as a non-candidate. Unfortunately, when campaigning for high office a candidate has to dumb things down act out a role in order to appeal to a broader range of voters. Gore was not likable as a candidate. Now that he's out of office he is much more relaxed, open and comes across as a hell of a lot smarter. Perhaps I could be wrong but Obama, the candidate, strikes me as close to the real person as you can get in a candidate.

OK Mag, I've searched the web over and I can't find where Teddy supported Shrill.  I'm almost positive he did at one time, but all the news surrounds his endorsement of Barry or his brain tumor.  I don't have the time or will to dig any further, so I concede that point to you, with the caveat that I think we'll both agree that Shrill was COUNTING on Kennedy's support and probably did not even court him thinking he would support her.  I stand by Edwards and Richardson as they were Shrill shills in the past.  

You can blame the High Court, media, stupid Floridians or any other scapegoats for Gore's loss, but ultimately the blame lies with Al himself.  He ran a poor campaign; he let others define him; he was poll driven and he never once let us see the "real" Albert Arnold "Al" Gore.  All he had to do was carry his "home" state of Tennessee.  If he couldn't do that, he probably deserved to lose.  

As for our favorite "rouge" prez, I agree with you.  The right gained control of the congress for the first time in FORTY YEARS under slick's watch, the conservative movement was furthered by about ten years because of him, and shrill and he took "politics of personal destruction" to new heights.  Wasn't it Chris Dodd that said "All politicians lie, but the clinton's lie with such ease"...

Had you divorced bill when he deserved to be put out to pasture, Mr. Gore would have assumed the helm, for close to two years - Hog

You are a typical party before country, anti-american fool.  So the Dems should have allowed the radical right to throw out a sitting president due to lying about a bj?  I don't think so and most of America didn't think so at the time either.

That would have been some precedent, wouldn't it?  But you are too stupid and too partisan to be a good American.

In anticipation of an Obama presidency they are already talking about how to obstruct the government and block legislation...heard this on Hannity radio the other day. Amazing how unpatriotic these fools are! You are right...to them, Party trumps Country.

Well Hogs, I'm an Obama supporter. Have been from the start. But if by some bizarre manner Hills should get the nomination - she's got my vote. After all, we have the alternative to consider...

Know, I can appreciate your loyalty, but there are plenty that will protest if shrill steals this nomination.  I give you the AA community.  I'll bet they stay home in droves if shrill manages to pull this off.  

Yet you say that as if you are somehow in-tune with the black communities in America.  That's just speculation, and in no way is there any reason to believe that that will play out in the general.

Don't put words in my mouth DB.  Nowhere did I say I was "in touch" with the AA community.  I said I "bet" they stay home in droves.  It was my speculation just like you said later in your post.  

Let's put my theory to the test though.  Go ahead and let Shrill steal this nomination.  Then let's see where the chips fall.  

Go ahead dems...I dare you!   

Really?  Cause that drug war has worked out so well so far right?

Besides with all the overcrowding in prison industrial complex, they wouldn't have any space for his fat butt. 

 

However, should Obama somehow pick Hillary for his VP slot, which I think is unlikely, but nevertheless, if he does, he will not get my vote.  I could never.

 

Rush has mastered the art of getting people to vote against their own self-interest. Tommy is just one example.  Because he has gotten people emotionally reacting, he wins.   

I have no clue what you are talking about, if you think that Rush Limbaugh has any influence over who I vote for or against, you are mistaken.

If that was your point?? 

So Rush again shows his racism and sexism. One wonders why he doesn't just come out and say only a white male should be president.

Rush Limbaugh hates blacks and women. He does not even pretend anymore.

Not true, Knightcrawler. Sure, he may not pretend well enough to fool you, but I think he convinces the meatheads in his audience that it's people who aren't scared to talk about racism who are racist. He just wants evrybody who's not rich and white to have the freedom to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Rush Limbaugh hates blacks and women.

He regards both as child-like, inferior and unwilling to help the rich stay rich.

More us vs. them tripe out of Limbaugh,

The guy is stale.

He's lost any vitality he ever had.

Time for change, homeboy.

Small man inside an enormous body - you really have to laugh at Comedians attempt at humor. He knows as much about women and race as he does quantum physics - I'm in awe of his expertise.

Another day goes by, and Limbaugh STILL has not addressed the issue of his arrest in the company of a male prostitute in Pittsburgh back in the '70s, when he was using the pseudonym "Jeff Christie".....

Has Limbaugh ever specifically denied the rumor of his alleged arrest in Pittsburgh? What lends credence to the story, IMO, is that it has been dogging Limbaugh since long before he became Rush Limbaugh the mega-celebrity. Limbaugh was just an obscure little radio jock when the story began circulating. In fact, he was even known by another name, Jeff Christie, at the time.

On the other hand, if there was such a persistent rumor about a figure like Keith Olbermann, for example, I suspect that Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly would provide daily coverage.

On the other hand, if there was such a persistent rumor about a figure like Keith Olbermann, for example, I suspect that Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly would provide daily coverage.

BINGO!!!!   :-)

(BTW, it looks like Walter Winchell sound-alike/Clarence Thomas think-alike Mark Levin has now declared war on Keith Olbermann, and is trying to force GE to fire Keith.  This is gonna be fun to watch....)

Yea...as we speak they're probably tracking down the young woman who had a one night night with Olbermann at a hotel in New York and then told everyone he was lousy in bed. They've already exposed Olbermann's past...gasp, as a sports anoouncer! Who knew...?

Feminazi: (noun) An imaginary villain created by comedian Rush Limbaugh, to scare Conservatives from embracing equality for women.

I think the supermarket tabloids are missing a killer market here. If they would follow, photo, and obsess over national news media figures. What a wonderful world, it would be, dubee dubee dubee du.

!-=$

OMG! Is that picture of him on the home page a recent one?  He looks like $#!+.  Seeing that pic, I'm almost concerned about the man.  (I mean, actually concerned, not just cynically commenting on his mental health.)

It's kinda hard to make a bloated drug addict look good...even with Photoshop.  ;>)

Oh I hear ya... But compare the pic on the home pag to the one that comes up when you click the link.  Night and day.  The one on the homepage looks light he's coming of a night in the drunk tank, tripped over some garbage and hadn't even showered. 

The one on the homepage looks light he's coming of a night in the drunk tank, tripped over some garbage and hadn't even showered. 

And you're point is what exactly...? FWIW, drug addicts are known to abandon personal hygiene. ;>)

You are a cold, cold man. :) :) ;)

And you're point is what exactly...? FWIW, drug addicts are known to abandon personal hygiene. ;>)

Which may explain while Marta Limbaugh failed for divorce. Actually, there's evidence that she and Rush didn't even LIVE together - she has a house in Florida not far from Rush's EIB bunker......

The 'feminazi' thing is ridiculous.  Like women are a cult and have a hideous plot to take over the world or something.  It is beyond sexist.  Is he doing anything here but trying to spread hate and suspicion towards strong, opinionated women?  Like any woman who doesn't spend her time knitting and making pie for the hardworking husband is part of this evil plan.

I also object to the grouping of all women into this box he likes to call 'feminazis'. Not all women support Hillary.  Her campaign is not some evil plot by women in general to get a woman into the Whitehouse so that we can figuratively castrate the entire world.

And the idea that women are trying to change "men" into "young man-boys" as part of the "feminazi grand plan" is just crazy.  He is clearly delusional.  My grandmother is paranoid schizophrenic and she sounds less crazy and paranoid than Rush when she says she thinks the Communists are poisoning her food.

Sounds like, as a child, Rush's mother used to threaten to cut off his little pee-pee if he was bad.  Sad, really... ;>)

Sounds like, as a child, Rush's mother used to threaten to cut off his little pee-pee if he was bad.  Sad, really... ;>)

Is he doing anything here but trying to spread hate and suspicion towards strong, opinionated women?

You forgot "unattractive".  ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_limbaugh - about 1/2 way down.  (Or just search for "Feminism")

Flush limbaugh is suffering from mental illness;RIGHT WINGITUS. He has been drinking that RIGHT WING koolaid for so long his brain can't function correctly. Every time he opens his big mouth he ends up inserting his foot in it.

Yeah, Rush, and if my uncle had a vagina, he'd be my aunt.

Yea, and if Rush had a vagina he'd be....  Ummm, nevermind...I don't want to banned from this site.  ;>)

It never ceases to amaze me at how adept the right wing is at projection. Everything that they accuse the Left of doing, they do themselves. Rush claims the left is racist. He claims they only want power. He claims they love party over country. He claims they don't support the troops. I could go on and on, but when you look at it honestly, its all projection of their own views and feelings. 

He also claims, or at least acts like he doesn't like homosexuals.  We all know the one's fighting the hardest publicly are usually the ones who are the wildest privately. 

Because Barack Obama is an affirmative action candidate. -Rush Limpba