Friday, April 13, 2012
Note to Rush/Douche-Bag Limbaugh
Yeah, I suppose that any government of any country could technically be called a "regime". But when I hear the term, I have much more of a tendency to think of individuals such as Saddam Hussein, Augusto Pinochet, Pol Pot, Roberto D'Aubuisson, Benito Mussolini, the Hamidian reign of holy terror in Turkey, Hafez and Bashir al Assad, the Shah of Iran, Slobodan Milosevic, Idi Amin, the Saudi royal family, Fidel Castro, Omar al Bashir, Muammar Gaddafi, Jerry Falwell (just wanted to see if you were paying attention), and, of course, Hitler and Stalin (please, feel free to fill in whoever I've forgotten). I don't think of a duly elected President of a Western democratic country.........................................................................................I mean, please, don't get me wrong here, bud. Mr. Obama could and probably SHOULD be criticized, but for you to be going around using hyperbolic innuendo like this - all that that's going to do is marginalize you (yeah, yeah, I know, you have a shitload of listeners - bit in the world of sanity, I'm saying) EVEN MORE (not that you necessarily want to be taken seriously, obviously). You really might want to reconsider this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Limbaugh says I'm not out to save the country. I'm out to get a large audience. I'm an entertainer first and a conservative second. Truth means nothing. It is all about ratings and to get ratings, he appeals to the lowest denominator.
"Truth means nothing. It is all about ratings and to get ratings, he appeals to the lowest denominator."
A statement which fits Olbermann as well. Only the blindest hypocritical partisan would disagree that this fits both men.
How absolutely correct you are dmarks.
Also, it turns out that MSNBC lowered the bar on this and established the rhetorical bombast of calling a Presidential administration you oppose a "regime" during the Bush years, and Limbaugh, as might be expected a lot of the time, followed their example.
Chris Matthews, Senator Sleestak, and others made this well-worn before Limbaugh dived into this particular gutter alongside them.
(Which, of course, is not to defend Limbaugh, but to show that is is not alone, nor a pioneer in such lowbrow politics)
dmarks: A statement which fits Olbermann as well. Only the blindest hypocritical partisan would disagree that this fits both men.
I STRONGLY disagree with this statement. Also, your claim that "only the blindest hypocritical partisan would disagree". Baloney. You can't just add shit like that to the end of a statement to prevent people from disagreeing with you! A debate judge would rule against you on that one dmarks.
In regards to referring to the bush administration as a "regime"? I say "so what"? You have to remember that, while Obama was legitimately elected, the bushies STOLE the election... TWICE! So, if "regime" has negative connotations, I think it appropriate to use it in reference to the illegitimate bush administration (which included a number of war criminals).
"I STRONGLY disagree with this statement"
Only because you are blindly partisan. One deceptive blowhard has a (D)" after his name, so you embrace him.
"You can't just add shit like that to the end of a statement to prevent people from disagreeing with you! "
I didn't. I just said it because it is true. I know that blind uncritical partisans on either side can and will disagree.
"You have to remember that, while Obama was legitimately elected, the bushies STOLE the election."
Only according to fringe whackjobs. Exactly like the fringe whackjobs who think Obama is Kenyan.
"So, if "regime" has negative connotations, I think it appropriate to use it in reference to the illegitimate bush administration (which included a number of war criminals)."
"Illegitimate" to you means having won the elections, but since you don't agree with how the people voted you make up or accept any lie. just like the "Birthers".
And we all know that "war criminals' is just a false accusation from armchair attorneys: cranks like that antisemitic professor who get laughed at by the World Court.
Jerry, hey, I give him credit for admitting that. I personally never thought that he would.
dmarks lied: Only because you are blindly partisan.
I am not. I've criticized Democrats on my blog.
dmarks lied: I just said it because it is true.
It's false.
dmarks: Only according to fringe whackjobs. Exactly like the fringe whackjobs who think Obama is Kenyan.
No, according to the facts. The votes were recounted in FL (after bush was anointed the "winner") and Gore actually had the most votes. This fact has nothing to do with the birther idiots and their lies.
dmarks: "Illegitimate" to you means having won the elections, but since you don't agree with how the people voted...
I call the bush regime illegitimate because their operatives disenfranchised largely Democratic voting African Americans wrongly in order to steal the election.
Obviously it is dmarks who does not agree with how the people voted. If he cared he would be angry like me that the recount was stopped.
dmarks lied: And we all know that "war criminals' is just a false accusation from armchair attorneys.
The accusations are true. They are only "false" if you ignore the facts. And I dare you to prove that the World Court laughed at Francis Boyle. You won't be able to do it. I predict crickets.
wd, you only criticize the Democrats when they aren't liberal ENOUGH. But, yeah, you're right. dmarks probably should have said bald ideologue instead of blindly partisan.
Will: you only criticize the Democrats when they aren't liberal ENOUGH.
I can think of no other reason that a Democrat should be criticized. Unless they have broken the law.
Spoken like a true absolutist/ideologue/believer.
No, I am not an absolutist. As for your other adjectives, how is is wrong to believe in an ideology you think works? If I called you a believer in the ideology of democracy would you be insulted?
True democracy would never work.
For you see it would be tyranny by the majority. For the sake of clarity that would mean potentially 49.9999% of the people could lose their rights. Our founders understood this. Hence our republic.
But or course you knew this, right wd?
No, "Rational", I do not agree with you on this "republic" nonsense at all. I believe Representative Democracy is the best form of government, and that our founders understood that. Hence our democracy.
RN is civically informed. WD is not. RN clearly recognizes, as the founding fathers did, that there needs to be some sort of firewall to protect the people from the predations of the ruling elites. Even if the rulings elites are "democratically" chosen representatives.
Hence the Bill of Rights.
Fact check on WD:
WD: The votes were recounted in FL"
Well, that is true. They were counted several times.
WD said "after bush was anointed the "winner"
Bush in fact won on election day in Nov 2008. You are assuming something that is entirely proven false. But anyway, this last redundant count was indeed done after Bush had won. Just like the others.
"and Gore actually had the most votes."
No, he did not. Gore only gets more votes if you convert ballots without votes on them to Gore ballots
"This fact has nothing to do with the birther idiots and their lies."
It does, because both you are believing and presenting ludicrous falsehoods about Presidents who have won elections.
"I call the bush regime illegitimate because their operatives disenfranchised largely Democratic voting African Americans wrongly in order to steal the election."
Also intrue. The list to remove ineligible people who threw their votes away by committing felonies was created by Democrats. And names were removed from it without regard to race. And he did not steal the election any more than Clinton before him or Obama after him did.
Fact check on dmarks...
dmarks: Bush in fact won on election day in Nov 2008.
You are asserting something that is entirely proven false. If bush had won on election day what the hell was the SCOTUS case and decision about? This is proof positive that dmarks has no clue. The one and only time a presidential election was decided by the SCOTUS and he's forgotten all about it.
dmarks: this last redundant count was indeed done after Bush had won. Just like the others. Gore only gets more votes if you convert ballots without votes on them to Gore ballots.
Both assertions are untrue. According to the Washington Post, "Full Review Favors Gore". According to their story "under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top". The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome. [source the same as that for the info in the next paragraph]
Robert Parry, writing for Consortium News says, "Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes".
And, that's not taking into consideration the mostly African Americans who were WRONGLY disenfranchised, which you also lie about.
dmarks: The list to remove ineligible people who threw their votes away by committing felonies was created by Democrats...
Fact checking reveals this statement to be false. According to investigative journalist Greg Palast, "Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris used their influence to purge and discount the ballots of predominantly Gore-supporting black voters through the 'fake felons list' compiled by private company DBT/ChoicePoint".
In total, "57,700 people (15% of the list), primarily Democrats of African-American and Hispanic descent, were incorrectly listed as felons and thus barred from voting".
Democrats had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with creating this list.
dmarks: RN is civically informed. WD is not.
Also false. I know what the purpose of the bill of rights is. dmarks does not. He thinks it gives corporations free speech rights. He's wrong.
Post a Comment