Rush Limbaugh says Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden are "on the same page."

It is that type of GOP propaganda that will continue to be pushed down the minds of the ignorant in this country.  They must not be allowed to succeed.

This collective group of right-wing slimers and all around assclowns are the perfect example of a group think (Orwell 1984) that:

Uses the very essence of freedom of speech and uses it for their own ends and goals.

Destroys the very fabric of the country that allows them to speak this way by complaining that it is the work of our enemies when called on it.

While there is no denying that some of this exists on the left as well..... it is beyond prevalent and wholly disgusting from the right, in that much of what they say, feeds into the fear of those that are to weak minded to realize it!

The Rev. Wright commercials will come...

The right-wing filth is as predictable as the rising sun.

Obama should already have a commercial filmed and ready to air, defending himself, and slamming Grampy for smear politics.

It's on the way, Barack.

Anybody catch Pat Buchanan on Fox last night, referring to Obama as "exotic"? One of the other guests (Tanya Acker is her name, I think), nailed him, pressing him for an answer as to what was so "exotic" about him. Pat ended up just sort of giggling, looking like he wanted the segment to end quickly.

Hello, I would give cash if someone called me "exotic".

Tommy, you are so exotic. Do you need my PayPal address?

:)

Come now Colonel, I don't think exotic people use PayPal.......but I can send a limo down to the OC with a cute outfit, will that work?

Done some lap dancing lately, Tommy? :-0)

Mine's on a pole, laps are so, ya know, so, what's the word?, gross.

I see why you want to give us the cash.  :-0)

Cash, no dates, Tommy.

Drats!  Let me check with Mom and Dad and see if I can get my allowance early.....cool?

Hello, I would give cash if someone called me "exotic".

I'll be glad to, if you let me substitute "idi" for "ex". 

How cow, Tommy, the Col. and JJ were having a little Friday fun and then you appeared.  Go back to the MOONBAT cave until the sun goes down!!

Oscar, I'm not sure who How Cow is, but if you were responding to Easy TRW, I think he was just having some fun too. And it was funny.

Perhaps it was intended as funny, however it didn't strike me that way. Some of us older members of society do tend to get grouchy at times for the wrong reasons.

And BTW, Holy Cow is an older friend of mine who now wanders the streets in India.

That was cute Oscar. At least you admit to be an old curmudgeon :-0) !!

Older. JJ, not old.  There is a difference (like about 20 years or so). But I can get a little grouchy if I miss a meal (or my prune juice).

Ah, but Ocsar the "Grouch", curmudgeon is but a state of mind. :-0) 

Curmudgeon I will answer to, "old" (also a state of mind) is not for me. Have a great balance of the weekend, time to go party (wheelchair square dancing, anyone?)

I'm not understanding why they think "exposing" Obama as a person who's different than most Americans is such a winning message.

But, if it is a way to demonize him, then we should do the same for McCain. He's about as far away from an average Joe as one can get. He's way older than most Americans, he's way richer, he's aligned with many of Bush's policies, which is contrary to most Americans, and he's still willing to smear his opponent in an effort to win friends and influence people. The American public has clearly rejected that modus operandi of the smear, and it seems like that is what he is doing and what he is saying he will not stop the 527's from doing either.

But McCain looks like somebody most Americans have known in their lives.Familiarity.

I'm ot saying it's important to most Americans, but the far right believe it is.It's what they like, comfort.

It's the same reason they buy Cadillacs. The Cadillacs routinely let them down (ask the owner of a good used car lot about Caddys) but dang it, it is just to risky to try a Lexus.

Nice analogy, Pit. Conservatism in a nutshell. The security of guaranteed failure is much more comfortable than the fear of striving to succeed(with the possibility of failure combined with the bonus of learning something from that failure).

I would like Barack to take these narratives and make them his strength.

Yeah, he isn't like the rest of these dysfunctional pundits, partisans and cultural conservatives.

Foser must have mailed this one in...an epic cut and paste of old mmfa threads.

Or maybe he thinks they will have more effect posted under his byline.

Not much here but a warmed over hash. 

I think you just cut and pasted that post from the one you did on the other thread. MMFA getting on Wes' nerves? There, there, chappy.

I was wondering how he could not see the humor in that. Chiming in on every thread with the same predictable complaint; that MMFA's items are repetetive and predictable.

I do appreciate the generosity of those who post here only to let everybody know how insignificant and useless this site is. It's fresh and new, every single post.

 

I understand Wes' point.  After all, you didn't invite him to either the lap or the pole dance.

Not much here but a warmed over hash. 

Right - nothing here except smears.  But as long as its a Democrat, I guess that's ok with you.

 One thing I know for sure - Grampy McMaverick is not at all like me due to his age.  Heck, he's probably older than 90% of the country.

Good article, but it's stuff like this that makes me sad that there were a lot of people who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries because she "wasn't electable" or "she had too much past baggage," or "she was a divisive figure," without realizing the same smear campaign she has endured for 16+ years could easily be turned on Obama, and look, now it is!!

(Full disclosure: I was hoping for a Clinton-Obama ticket in '08 and '12, and Obama-?? in '16 and '20...)

"(Full disclosure: I was hoping for a Clinton-Obama ticket in '08 and '12, and Obama-?? in '16 and '20...)"

Well...we could still have Obama-Clinton in '08 and '12, and Clinton-?? in '16 and '20.  There's still hope!

But by then, she would be almost as old as McCain is now? Gramps becomes Grams?

Speaking of smears,I visited Obamas fightthesmears.com site today. Not to my surprise the first item I saw was a lie on the site that Limbaugh was lieing about there being a tape in existence showing Mrs Obama using the "whitey" word. Fact: Limbaugh did not say the tape existed, he said there was a rumor circulating that such a tape existed. He also said the person originating the rumor had no credibility because of past false statements. Turns out the person starting the rumor is a democrat activist on Hillary Clinton's campaign staff.But the hue and cry by outraged dems is directed at the gop.  So unethical,so hypocritical, so dishonest, so typically lib dem.

Thanks for all of the links and evidence to support your post. Typical dittohead weak BS.

Not to mention trying to distract from the points made in the posting by Media Matters.

Hmmmmm, interesting

"They have to know what lies ahead.  And, of course, there are these rumors circulating, and I don't know if this is true, but there are a number of people suggesting -- and I first heard this, by the way, when I was gone Monday and Tuesday of last week -- that there's a video and that the Republican Party supposedly has it now of Michelle Obama speaking from the pulpit in this church talking about "whitey."  I don't care if it's unacceptable, Snerdley. I'm just reporting what's out there.  I'm reporting on a rumor that is out there.  No, I cannot mention... (interruption)"

Okay, forget I said "Michelle (My Belle) Obama." I'll just say "his wife."  Obama's wife is out there. There's a rumor that there's a tape -- the Republicans have it, and we're waiting to use it in October -- of Michelle going nuts in the church, too, talking about whitey this and whitey that.  You know, if I'm the Democrats are looking at this, I'm saying... They gotta know they're sitting on top of a powder keg here, and somebody in this party -- Howard Dean or somebody -- has gotta send somebody up to this church and say, "Well, you people take the next five months off, or move this congregation somewhere? Move it to Reverend Wright's house -- it's in a gated community -- so nobody can know what you're doing in there. Just give us five months, will you, and shut up!" You know, the Clintons are -- make no mistake about it -- making hay out of this, as they lobby the rules committee and so forth.

Where does Rush mention it came from a discredited Democrat?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_053008/content/01125111.guest.html 

I have a video tape of you performing oral sex on a donkey.

See how easy that is to say....

Produce said tape or shut up about it.

Where is this 'fact' you keep refering to? 

But the hue and cry by outraged dems is directed at the gop...

Fake outrage has been patented, trademarked, and copyrighted by the GOP and its evil, anti-American messengers.  Try again.

Yeah, there is nothing more boring than Republican's Fake Outrage®.

No way!  Fake outrage has been in the public domain since long before the founding of either American political party.

But the hue and cry by outraged dems is directed at the gop

When you repeat what you know is a lie, you're guilty.

condolences to the family of tim russert. 

Defending against a smear campaign is very easy, but still beyond the reach of most Democrats.  Early indications are that Obama gets it where Gore and Kerry didn't.

Only the briefest of comments should be used defending yourself against the smear.  Most of what you say should be attacking the character and policies of the smearers.  Their next smear then damages themselves, and the more they get damaged, the more they smear, and the more they get damaged.

Is it possible that nobody in the media remembers McCarthyism?

 
I grew up in the heyday of the hunt against ideas, intelligence, discerning criticism, or anything smacking of intellectualism. If you spoke correctly, had a taste for art or (Heaven forbid!) classical music, a concern for social betterment or (much more dangerously) a desire to keep informed of international affairs, you would be labeled – at best – as an elitist, but, much more often, as a communist.

 
Even when the red-baiting subsided, this infamous legacy remained in the form of disdain for outstanding intelligence, with the threat of being characterized as an “egghead” or a “nerd” becoming the most feared amongst young people.

 
The one factor that most contributed to rescuing the educational system from total oblivion was ‘the race for Space’ and the awareness that supremacy in Science would amount to political power in the world.

 
If you remember these things, you have every right to be terrified of what the onslaught against Obama – and against visionaries within the scientific community - really means.

 
I do hope and pray – for the sake of PEACE on this martyred planet – that more true journalists will accept the challenge to fight the mental slavery imposed by the Bush-Cheney regime.

 
Sandra Rodríguez
San Juan, Puerto Rico

 

There's at least three distinctly different ways to respond to a "smear" or any kind of "attack" in a political campaign, be it from the opposition, or from the media (who work in the interests of the opposition).

1. The Positive Assertion: that's where you answer a smear/attack with an assertion of something strong and positive, and reliable, about your candidate... something that, were someone to even believe or heed attention to the attack/smear, it would offset it, and put them in mind of the reasons they might vote for the candidate, as opposed to reasons they might not. It's taking the opportunity you have, in a moment where all attend to you and await your response, to say something strong and positive, that they'll remember... and the fact that it seems to be unrelated to whatever the insult/attack was, does not matter: as sticks and stones might break my bones, but this is my strength and this is what I stand for! Hear my words!

2. The Counter-Attack: perhaps the single thing that discourages any person in this world (in any matter) from attacking or insulting another person, is the expectation that they will be attacked or insulted back... this is such a primal truth, that nearly all animals know it (about attacks), and even children learn it rather quickly: but it's often either lost on certain adults, in the muddle of thoughts about "stooping to their level" or "taking the high road", or else those certain adults merely rationalize away any type of Counter-Attack, from a cowardly disposition. It remains the single most effective prevention/deterrent to being insulted or attacked: the Counter-Attack.

3. The Whining Complaint: this is so ineffective as a response to being attacked or insulted, in a political campaign or in any other social or personal matter, that it is actually counter-productive, and destructive... especially when the Whining Complaint includes withing it, a repetition of the insult or personal attack: that's a little like responding to someone tweaking your nose, by you tweaking it yourself, again, for them. Please note that nowhere in the first two types of responses I described, is there any place or reason, to repeat the insult or personal attack. Unless the response of the Whining Complaint is meant to gather sympathy and pity, it is useless, and can only only be excused as a response in children, and sometimes in women, who are neither strong nor very mature, or in some way disposed to playing their cards in that manner... and in those cases, it would be just as effective to start crying, as to make a Whining Complaint.

 

There is no place for #3 in the balance of the current presidential campaign, and every place for numbers 1 and 2... certainly not when we are given the appearance and voice and bearing of Mr. Obama, who seems so naturally suited to responses 1 and 2 (and in the case of 2, to always appear somewhat amused, and joyous even, in the opportunity to Counter-Attack or insult, the pitiful fool who attacks or insults him first)... I say Mr. Obama seems naturally suited and adept, for responses 1 and 2: I may have neglected to mention, that in addition to children and sometimes weak and immature women, being disposed to crying and the Whining Complaint, are also some men, when they become quite old, and perhaps so old as to lose their bearings, or their marbles, or whatever it is that makes that rattling sound under the hood... such crying and Whining Complaints are sometimes also found in old men, but not in young men. We don't need it.

 

 

I may have neglected to mention, that in addition to children and sometimes weak and immature women, being disposed to crying and the Whining Complaint, are also some men, when they become quite old, and perhaps so old as to lose their bearings, or their marbles, or whatever it is that makes that rattling sound under the hood... such crying and Whining Complaints are sometimes also found in old men, but not in young men. We don't need it. Dem02020

 

What? Men, young or old can and do whine just as much as any other component of society. Please. And they gossip too, trust me, some of my male neighbors are busybodies and gossips and big time whiners. 

 

That's true, I agree. My comment did sort of make it sound as though there is a giant monolithic block of men in America, aged 25 to 49, who are above all catty and unbecoming behavior (unbecoming in men), such as complaining when they could instead sound a more forceful positive effective voice... and sure, gossiping too, as you noted: and being hypersensitive, even neurotic, about any and every little thing, squawking and clucking like hens, instead of crowing...

It's true, there's no such solid class of men as I may have seemed to describe, not in America, and maybe not in the world (I don't know).

As far as American men aged 25 to 49, who complain and gossip and hypersensitively neuroticly squawk and cluck about any and every little thing, yes, we may have at present an all-time high surplus in that kind of stuff...

I blame television.

True... I'm not kidding. Television has had, and continues to have, the most destructive influence on the minds and hearts (desires) of American men, than any other thing that exists... not even money (which is so closely associated with the malicious influence of commercial television)... even money has not the warping influence on the hearts and minds of American men today, that television does .

Absolutely true.

And the terrible type of American man that I just described, all complaints and gossip and hypersensitive neurotic squawking and clucking about any and every little thing?

I just described not only the male lead in every situation comedy on television, but most of the cackling squawking hens on these idiot television political commentary shows...

The terrible kind of American man I just described?

I described a 'pundit'.

 

I blame television... for a lot of things, including in part the decrepit state of the American man's heart and mind, I blame television. True.

 

In America today, men aged 25 to 49, have watched television from the cradle, and will watch it to the grave... this is unprecedented in America, and the world... American Television Babies Children Boys and Men: so many millions of them, they can hardly be counted.

True.

 

Not sure how we got off on a tangential segue about the teevee, but I have to agree that TV is a powerful medium. And it's a one way medium not readily given to participation. At least with reading your brain is required to do some work. With TV you're passively presented with a whole picture that doesn't require reasoning power to be activated (like what happens to the brain while reading) thus abstract thought, reasoning and logic is subdued. It does rot the brain imo.

 

To take an example of an infinitely better medium, of one where you select from an infinite variety of portals of information, and examine those things to whatever that depth pleases you, at length or from time to time: at your leisure and your convenience (and to even interact with that medium)... to take the Internet Wire for example: it is like a microscope, under which you place any slide you like... and examine the matter in as great a detail as you wish... and at great length, or on occasion: and always to your own benefit and pleasure. Also, the Internet Wire is like a telescope: you point the instrument anywhere in the heavens your mind and eye leads you, toward any one of billions of portals of light: you explore by way of this instrument, anything and everything that pleases or informs you, to as great a degree and for as much time as you wish...

The Internet Wire is like that: it is an Instrument, like a microscope or a telescope, for exploration and discovery and information and amusement and pleasure, interactively.

 

Television has also a tube you stare into or at, through some number of lenses, like a telescope... except it has this all-important difference: the danged tube is held in someone's hand, and they point the danged thing for you... with your mind and your eye attached to that danged tube, it is swung about and pointed at whatever crap it is that serves the one pointing it: that serves the television broadcaster... if it were like a microscope, then it is a microsope that your eye and mind is attached to, but that the slides placed beneath it's lenses are not of your making, or choice, nor are they anything you would really want to look at, if you gave the matter any real consideration...

Television bears so little resemblance to this new Internet Wire, and is infinitely inferior to it.

Television, if it were a telescope, is pointed for you to lead your mind and eye not to the heavens, but toward Three And A Half Men, or toward bill o'reilly and sean hannity and chris matthews (who if they compose any amount of men, it is in an amount too fractionally small to bother reckoning)...

Television, if it were a microscope, is like one where the slides placed beneath it are nothing that you would ever truly want to look at: but there's nothing else on right now (except an overblown memorial for one of their own, for a television personality exactly like they are, exactly like bill o'reilly)... television places before your eyes and your mind, for a detailed and microscopic examination, nothing but a course brown substance smeared on a glass slide...

Nothing But CHIT On Television.

 

All Hail, and all Praise the Internet Wire.

Turn off the television Children: it'll ruin your eyes, and your mind.

 

"The medium is the message". That sums it up. 

 

And since I'm typing, and the subject is television, and the televised idiots who are forced on us, with their political opinions...

What little bit I see from the ongoing Tim Russert coverage, is nauseating, for the overblown hysterical and solemn weeping melodramatic 24 hour coverage, of the heart attack death of a television personality who worked for NBC...

You'd think the Pope had died, or some other Head of State.

If you think that observation of mine is disrepectful of a man's life, or of his death, or of those who grieve for him, then check yourself: it is television I speak of, and the dramatic broadcast reaction that CNN and Fox and MSNBC and NBC, and I guess ABC and CBS, are all having, over the passing of a television personality, who (hear this now) is little different from charles gibson or brian williams or katie couric, or (Hear Me Now) bill o'reilly.

If the passing of Tim Russert is so deserving of such an overblown melodramatic trumping of our PUBLIC AIRWAVES, for the 24 hour outpouring of tears and grief from the likes of every single talking head that can get in front of a television camera...

If this is what happens when Tim Russert dies, then what will it be like when bill o'reilly passes away?

National Grief... A Day Of Mourning... Candlelight Vigils... and the American Flag at Half-Mast, I guess.

 

I'm talking about television, and about a television personality... I'm not talking about any person I loved or admired or respected, or even knew.

 

DEM02020,

I agree with you regarding the coverage of Russert's death.  This pseudo-journalist used his position to present distorted "fact" and outright lies to a gullible and unimformed viewer audience for far too long.  I was surprised to read of his journalism awards.  If that is the type of journalism that receives awards we are in trouble.

Now that I've become one with the utter uselessness of the media, I say let them spout on whatever they want.  The public airwaves are gone for good, and the internet is the only answer.  (When the media is a force of evil rather than just a force of uselessness, though, it's time to attack.)

If the media talks about important stuff, they just screw it up and lace it with conservative spin.  If they're gossiping or glorifying themselves or obsessing on nonpolitical trivia, they aren't hurting liberals.  They're only hurting their ratings.

"Michael Savage claims to "doubt" that Obama "would take our side" after a terrorist attack"

I, for one, have no doubt whatsoever that the Republican Party wouldn't take "our side" (our side being the USA for those who get their information from the foreign-owned FOX Network), since not only has George W Bush maintained a hands-off policy on Osama Bin Laden for the past 7 years, but you will find virtually NO ONE in the Republican Party chastising Bush/Cheney for not getting Bin Laden or even wanting to get Bin Laden!

Has the foreign-owned FOX Network done one report in the past 7 years on the fact that the United States government has allowed Osama Bin Laden to face to repercusions after killing 3000 people on US soil? Has Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly, EVER ONCE talked with the same angerous venom about Bin Laden that they regularly talk about towards Americans (Michael Moore, Al Franken, John Kerry, Daily Kos,  etc.)? Does anyone even doubt that the rightwing talking heads and government officials have more hatred and anger towards American progressives than against the man Bush has allowed to become a hero in the Middle East by victoriously attacking America and proudly living for almost a decade now without fear of reprisal from the Bush administration?

One thing is assured - if a Republican president is warned repeatedly, with dire warnings, that America is about to be attacked, he will do NOTHING! And after America has been attacked on his watch, he will go about business as usual, proceed with his established agenda (in Bush's case, attacking and occupying Iraq) , and do NOTHING to get the perpetrator! And NO ONE in the Republican Party or the MSM will object!

 

 

 

I agree with DEM02020 regarding the coverage of the death of Russert.  The pseudo-journalist that he was didn't hesitate to distort facts and then confront his Democrat party "guests" with same.  I was surprised to learn of the awards he recieved over the years.  If his brand of journalism is award-winning I feel sad for all of us.

"How about Obama blowing up the Sears Tower! I never liked that building anyway." 

"Weisman wasn't the first reporter to use the "just kidding" defense after inappropriately and baselessly linking Obama to a controversial figure. CNN commentator Jeff Greenfield (now with CBS) compared Obama's tendency to wear shirts with open collars to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's..."

I love how Foser describes Mahmoud and Osama as "conversial figure[s]."  Not "America's enemies" or "terrorists and terrorist supporters" but merely "controversial figures."  Because he cannot render judgment on anyone, even someone who has murdered thousands of his fellow citizens.  It's times like this where I almost agree with Savage that modern American liberalism is a mental disorder.  

Damn, talk about mental disorders! It's all in good fun to compare the next president to terrorists and dictators?

Check yourself kid. Where's all that personal responsibility? I know, you didn't mean to imply we're mentally disabled or that Obama is in league with our enemies. It was just a joke. Right?