How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Let me get this straight. Is it actuall
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Let me get this straight. Is it actually true

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


0 posted 01-30-2009 04:11 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped President Obama and his recovery program would fail?  I heard an excerpt from the Business Channel in which R.L. was interviewed by one of the Business Channel folks and R.L. tried to explain himself.

     I don't understand why Limbaugh would find it more important that Obama fail than the country recover.

     And can somebody explain this to me in steps small enough for a puzzled guy to understand exactly what good this will actually do the country?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


1 posted 01-30-2009 05:34 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You don't need it explained to you, Bob. Use your google and you'll read all about it. Moveon.org decided to take a Limbaugh comment out of context and create an ad meant to inflame voters enough to petition their congressmen to pass the stimulus bill. Limbaugh came out with a counter ad showing the ENTIRE interview. The tactic is nothing new for Moveon.org. It appears that this tactic also will backfire in Sauros' face, as have many preceding it.

Interesting that you would just post it instead of doing a little research on it first.

A little too tempting to pass up, perhaps?  
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


2 posted 01-30-2009 08:07 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Bob:  To use Balladeer's own earlier word, Rush is a "clown."  (I've added other words, but I'm becoming more temperate, or less interested...)

He deserves about the same amount of attention as a political philosopher, intellect, or policy influence as Clarabelle from Howdy Doody.  Not that Clarabelle didn't have the same amount of influence on six year olds.  Honk.  Honk.

Best, Jimbeaux

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


3 posted 01-30-2009 08:08 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Google is pretty clear about the statement and about Mr. Limbaugh's attempts to talk his way out of and around it.  If there are references to any particular progressive sources made in the Google listings, they seem pretty well buried in the listings of conservative listings of folks who seem at least somewhat upset with Mr. Limbaugh as well.  There were no references to Moveon that leaped out.  Should there have been, a footnote would prove helpful.  Mr. Souros was mentioned noplace that  was evident in this examination, but a specific reference in that regard would be appreciated there as well.  None were available in this scan, and a scoop is always welcome.

     The ad you reference showing the entire interview didn't seem available, either, probably due to shoddy research on my part.  A reference to that would be helpful, though I can't say that I'll be able to get to it for a day or two, since Elaine and I will be out of town for the weekend.

     You should be aware that your comment about my difficulty with Mr. Limbaugh's reaction being "A little too tempting to pass up, perhaps? " came across as a bit provocative on this end.  I do not understand how President Obama's failure to pass an economic recovery package will help the country.  I did not understand this before, and I do not understand this now.  Mr. Limbaugh's party pretty much had its economic way with the country for most of the last eight years.  Blocking efforts to help fix it somehow make no sense to me.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


4 posted 01-30-2009 08:53 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Google is pretty clear about the statement and about Mr. Limbaugh's attempts to talk his way out of and around it.    Yes, it's all in the way you want to perceive it, Bob. As one who had criticized me on several occasions of taking comments of yours out of context, you should be able to understand how it's done. In this case, where the comment was clearly taken out of context, it is just as easy for a prejudiced eye to say explanations are "an attempt to talk his way out of it". If you want to hear the entire interview, just listen to the Limbaugh program, as distasteful as that may be. It is being broadcast in fifty states and listened to by millions of people. I heard the interview twice today. When it shows up somewhere more palatable for you, I'll let you know. This is what Limbaugh said..

Limbaugh told his listeners that he was asked by “a major American print publication” to offer a 400-word statement explaining his “hope for the Obama presidency.” He responded:
    So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.


I did not mean for my comment to be provocative, Bob. Your dislike for Limbaugh is well documented. You begin a thread detrimental to him with a proclaimed innocence of not knowing what in the world it's about, so obviously you hadn't yet googled it yet. Since it is unlike you to create threads without actual facts, I made the assumption of the possibility that your dislike for Limbaugh overpowered your search first for factual data and I therefore used the word "tempting" describing your "Rush" to judgement. Forgive me if it came across badly.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


5 posted 01-30-2009 09:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I don't understand why Limbaugh would find it more important that Obama fail than the country recover.

The answer to that should be obvious, Bob. Limbaugh does not think Obama's liberal agenda will cause the country to recover. Simple enough.

Rush is a clown. He deserves about the same amount of attention as a political philosopher, intellect, or policy influence as Clarabelle from Howdy Doody.

Right you are, Jimbeaux, and yet look what we have here, the president of the United States warning people against him and folks here upset by his comments and observations. Not bad for a clown....
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 01-30-2009 09:17 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

(CNSNews.com) - The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running an audio clip on its Web site that misrepresents what radio host Rush Limbaugh meant when he said on his Friday, Jan. 16 radio program that he wanted President Obama "to fail."

The audio clip, as played by the DCCC, omits a key sentence, as follows:

DCCC version: “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. [EDIT] I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking about replying to the guy, 'Okay, I”ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.'”

What Limbaugh said: "If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down.  And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."

Limbaugh, on his Jan. 16 radio program, also made the point that no liberals hoped President Bush would succeed.  Nevertheless, Limbaugh continued, Obama "is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids.  Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism?  Why would I want to do that?  So I can answer it, four words, 'I hope he fails.'  And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say.  Shows you just how far gone we are.  Well, I know, I know.  I am the last man standing."

On subsequent radio programs, Limbaugh has talked about people "misunderstanding" his remark.

On his Friday, Jan. 23 program -- reviewing the week -- Limbaugh explained that he supports Obama -- he just doesn't support Obama's policies. "I don't support the nationalization of the banks, which has happened. I don't support the nationalization of the auto companies. I don't support the nationalization of the mortgage business. I don't like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd running things. And I don't want that to continue," Limbaugh said.

And on his Tuesday, Jan. 27 program at one point, Limbaugh referred to President Obama telling Republicans to ignore Limbaugh: "The president of the United States hopes I fail," Limbaugh said.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42668
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


7 posted 01-30-2009 09:20 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It's not the first time, bob, and it won't be the last. Sorry you got pulled into the web..

Democrats and liberal groups have misrepresented Limbaugh’s words and meaning on previous occasions, most notably bashing him two years ago for using the term "phony soldiers" to describe Jesse Macbeth, who was sentenced to five months in prison for falsifying his military records.

A group that wanted Limbaugh removed from taxpayer-supported Armed Forces Radio claimed that Limbaugh had used the term "phony soldiers" to describe all soldiers who had spoken against the Iraq war.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, wading into the controversy, gave a speech on the Senate floor, condemning Limbaugh and urging his colleagues to send a letter of complaint to the chairman of Clear Channel Communications, which syndicates Limbaugh’s radio show.

Limbaugh turned tables on Reid, however. In October 2007, the radio host auctioned off the letter that Reid sent to the CEO of Clear Channel Communications demanding that Limbaugh be censured and forced to apologize to U.S. servicemen.

The winning bid on eBay was $2.1 million, which Limbaugh matched – raising $4.2 million for the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, which serves children of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


8 posted 01-30-2009 09:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Oh, I forgot about Moveon.org. Here you go, Bob..

29 January 2009
New Anti-Limbaugh Radio Attack Ad To Air Beginning Tomorrow

STEPPING IT UP

Dems Plan New Anti-Limbaugh Attack Ads
Apparently furious with the success of a newly-reunited conservative-GOP coalition against the reckless spending of hundreds of billions in taxpayer funds, a group of Obamists headed by MoveOn.org are planning an anti-Rush Limbaugh attack radio ad campaign. Set to begin tomorrow on stations nationwide, the ads are designed to put pressure on GOP moderates in the US Senate who might be inclined to follow the lead of their House counterparts. In yesterday's vote on the phony, pork-laden "stimulus" bill, Republicans (joined by a handful of Democrats) unanimously rejected the Obamist plan.

Here's the script of their radio attack ad:


    ANNOUNCER: Listen to what Rush Limbaugh said about President Obama’s agenda and his jobs package:


    RUSH LIMBAUGH: I HOPE HE FAILS!


    ANNOUNCER: The Obama jobs bill overwhelmingly passed the House. But not one Republican voted yes. Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice. Every Republican voted with Limbaugh. And against creating four million new American jobs.


    We can understand why a extreme partisan like Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama’s jobs program to fail.


    But the members of Congress elected to represent the citizens in their districts? That’s another matter.


    Now the Obama plan goes to the Senate. And the question is:


    Will our Senator, (insert name here), side with Rush Limbaugh too?


    LIMBAUGH: I HOPE HE FAILS!


    ANNOUNCER: Or, will he reject the partisanship and failed economic policies of the past, and stand up for the people of (state).

    Call Senator (insert name here) now at (202) 224-3121. Tell him he represents you, not Rush Limbaugh.

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-anti-limbaugh-radio-attack-ad-to.html
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


9 posted 01-31-2009 07:54 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Hey, Bob.

Mike pretty much summed it all up on Rush. I'm not a fan of his either but he has a right to have his say. And he actually gets some things right sometimes like everyone else. He has a point about Liberalism and, as you know, Rush is a Passionate Conservative.

So is my Dad.

I get to listen to him say, about every day, "Yay! We live in Obama Land, Obama Land! What's he gonna hand to everybody today!!" The statement oozes with a very seasoned amount of sarcasm that I'd not try to counter.

so what do I need Rush for?? LOL.

And how could I possibly fault my Dad who's more man than any I've ever met. He doesn't want Obama to fail as much as he wants the American people to stand up and account for their own lives and livelihoods. It's not the man he can't stand. He actually has a deep admiration for Obama, but he feels liberalism is a disease.

so they can knock Rush out of the airwaves, but "passionate conservatives rarely need a microphone. Their hard work and determination to be self-governed are usually what liberals dip into to pay their way." HAHAHA.

straight from Daddy's repertoire of blasts.

Oh well, again, it takes all kinds.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


10 posted 01-31-2009 09:15 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
I don't understand why Limbaugh would find it more important that Obama fail than the country recover.


Its not that difficult to understand Bob.

Limbaugh isnt talking about the success or failure of the country, hes attempting to address the success or failure of the Obamas policies in isolation without addressing the possible consequences of such a failure.

Limbaughs statement only becomes a problem if Americas recovery is dependant on Obamas success - and that clearly isnt the case. Obamas policies could fail spectacularly and theres still a chance that the policies that replace them could effect a recovery.

Thats what Limbaugh is hoping for - Obama to fail and Republican policies to ultimately save the day.

A lose\win result.

Its a clarion call for absolutely partisan politics.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


11 posted 01-31-2009 10:22 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

This is David Frum on Rush and the GOP in general:

quote:
These are the numbers [numbers that indicate a substantially stronger base for Dems in almost every state--Brad]  that make yesterdays flexing of muscle by Rush Limbaugh over Georgia congressman Phil Gingery not merely ridiculous but actively dangerous. When Republicans line up behind Rush Limbaugh in this way, they are dividing the country 80-20 against themselves. Our supreme priority now has to be to reinvent ourselves as a pragmatic, inclusive, modern party of free enterprise and limited government.


This is a good idea. Let the GOP become the party of ideas again (there was a time, say the late 80's to early 90's).


quote:
We have to relearn how to talk to moderates, independent, younger voters, educated voters, women its a long list.

Instead, our congressmen talk to and about Rush Limbaugh like Old Bolsheviks praising Comrade Stalin at their show trials. Rush is right! We see eye to eye with Rush! There is no truth outside Rush!


I didn't say that. Frum said that. I've been thinking this for a long time however.

[omitted blah, blah paragraph about Hannity, Coulter, and Rush]

quote:
The relationship between these radio talkers and the larger Republican and conservative world has become parasitic and antagonistic. They flourish and profit to the extent they can polarize and radicalize.


This is correct.

[omitted part about GOP reaching out]

quote:
What is good for Rush is bad for the GOP, and what is good for the GOP is bad for Rush.


[omitted more stuff about being bigger than Rush. The GOP, I mean. ]

quote:
America is not turning Democratic because Americans have suddenly become liberals. America is no more liberal than it is conservative. Most Americans are not ideological at all and they gravitate to the less ideological party, to the party that seems businesslike, sensible, and responsible. (Or anyway: less profligate, less heedless, and less irresponsible.) For most of the past third of the century, that party was the GOP. No longer. Until we seem that way again, we will sojourn in the wilderness.


I agree that that is how most Americans think. I disagree with his GOP characterization.

But the main point is this: The GOP is shooting itself in the foot.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


12 posted 02-01-2009 02:23 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I do agree that the GOP is not what it once was...and that's a shame.


The GOP shooting itself in the foot? They are not the ones complaining about being threatened by talk show hosts..they are not the same because they do not stand up for their ideals anymore in solidarity.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


13 posted 02-02-2009 02:13 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I requested clarification.  I can't say that I feel anything but somewhat more confused..

     Where might I find video or audio of Rush Limbaugh's actual statement say, a text that everybody agrees is authentic?  I have no wish to quote or take the guy out of context.  My dislike for the man takes backstage to my wish for accuracy.  My idea is that even people I don't like deserve to be quoted correctly, and that even people I don't like are on occasion correct, even if it's more difficult to enjoy their success.  Maybe I'm old fashioned this way.

     My notion is also that wanting someone else's philosophy to fail may be understandable, but it's more important that the country benefit.  The neo-conservatives that are Mr. Limbaugh's lambs have been running things their way for quite a while now, and they haven't really been that helpful.  

     I had hoped that the Move-on references would be the ones you mentioned earlier, that predated your earlier comments and that had something to to with Mr. Souros, and not ones that might happen afterwards, that might or might not come to pass.  Perhaps I misunderstood.

     It's entirely likely, you know, that these bills won't work.  I understand that, and I think President Obama does as well.  I sure hope they do, though.

     The nationalization of the banking industry and the car industry that Rush Limbaugh talks about, I'm a bit unclear about, though.  I understood that the ownership of both industries remained in private hands, and that the bailout that especially the financial services industry got put up to about 13 Billion dollars into bonuses for management, about 3.0%, though I'd have to do some extra checking to be sure.  The was the bill that the last administration told us was absolutely necessary for the financial survival of the country, wasn't it?  And that the Democrats in Congress were silly enough to sign off on?  

     Idiocy is a big enough gave so that any number can play.

     I disagree that it would be wise to take Rush Limbaugh off the air, or even to suggest people not listen to him.  I thing the Democrats would break new ground in foolishness to go along with such advice, though I confess that there will always be new ground to be broken, no matter who might be in power.

     Once again, however, I must beg to disagree with your position that President Obama is anybody's Liberal Democrat, and to reassert my own position that he only sounds that way because the Republican Party has become so hateful to it's own moderate wing.  I believe that President is at best a Rockefeller Republican.  Bless him for that, by the way, but to confuse him for an authentic Liberal seems to skew the whole understanding of the political spectrum beyond all reason.

     Ted Kennedy is barely a political Liberal, for heaven's sake!  Though bless him too for the solid leadership he's attempted to show in a party that's lost its way since his brother was president.

     Why would we want to take Rush Limbaugh off the air?  He's the best example of what the country's trying to deal with on the right, and what will happen if we're not careful.  He sounds like a clown but he means every word of it.  He says he's joking, but I can't think of an instance where he wouldn't take what he was joking about for real if offered a chance.  Can you?  You need people like that.  They're a national resource.

     I've been out of town, in San Francisco, with Elaine for the past few days, and I really appreciate how wonderfully forthcoming everyone's been while I've been gone.  Thanks everybody, you've been especially wonderful!  It's especially nice being back and seeing what everybody's got to say!

With appreciation, Bob Kaven
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


14 posted 02-02-2009 08:59 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Grinch,
quote:
A lose\win result.

Its a clarion call for absolutely partisan politics.


Heres a slightly different angle on our GOPs partisan-bipartisan logic.

quote:
Voting against the bill was good politics because it shows that the GOP can't be persuaded by charm alone, presidential or otherwise. Sure, Republicans risk coming off as stubborn in the face of Obama's ostentatious magnanimity. But at this stage, there's nothing wrong with playing hard to get. There will be time for bipartisan necking later.
Another advantage is that the vote makes Minority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor look good. The fact that zero out of 178 Republicans broke ranks shows a united, disciplined front. On a symbolic vote like thisone of the first of the 111th Congresssending a signal is more important than reaching an immediate compromise.  
quote:
Lastly, voting against the stimulus is win/win for Republicans.
If the package succeeds at reviving the economy, it won't be in the short term. (And even in the long term, success will probably be less tangible than its cost.) If it fails, they can say, I told you so. Meanwhile, many of them are looking for political cover after voting for the October bailout, which hasn't exactly been a roaring success. Partisan Now, Bipartisan Later


Ok, I realize the above article reads a bit like foreplay, which is creepy in politics, but there's more spending ideology in the link. Everyone has a formula for getting to home base, but the Reps seem to be playing footsy to me.

The logic?

quote:
But if incentives mean anythingand to Republicans, they dothe pledge of eventual bipartisanship may be legitimate.



I dunno. The Wall Street Bailout was passed with virtually NO safeguards and, evidently, for an ever-changing infinite amount, The bill is sitting there with our economy bipartisanly toasted, which to me, means everyone will fail if someone in the White House doesnt succeed in doing something right with the dough.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


15 posted 02-02-2009 10:48 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Where might I find video or audio of Rush Limbaugh's actual statement say, a text that everybody agrees is authentic?  I have no wish to quote or take the guy out of context.  My dislike for the man takes backstage to my wish for accuracy. ....BobK

If you want to hear the entire interview, just listen to the Limbaugh program, as distasteful as that may be. It is being broadcast in fifty states and listened to by millions of people. I heard the interview twice today. .....Balladeer

Perhaps you missed that entry, Bob? You can also bring it up on Rush's website, if you like.

  I had hoped that the Move-on references would be the ones you mentioned earlier, that predated your earlier comments and that had something to to with Mr. Souros, and not ones that might happen afterwards, that might or might not come to pass.  Perhaps I misunderstood.

Actually, Bob, Souros runs Moveon.org, if you didn't know. Also, this was not something that might or might  not come to pass. That exact political commercial was run in five states in an attempt to bring pressure on the congressmen to back Obama's plan.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


16 posted 02-03-2009 11:25 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Checking into what I have found so far   and I still need to check out Mr. L's web site A few things seem clear.  

1. Mr. L. has stated that a major print publication asked him to voice his hopes for President Obama's term in 400 words.  A number of different sources say this.  Left and right, including Mr L.

2.  Mr. L. says he will not need 400 words.  Mr. L. did say this, and other sources agree.

3.  Mr. L. said all he would need would be four words.

4.  "I hope he fails" were the four words he chose.

     About these things alone it seems possible that some substantial things might be said.  The whole notion of a print journal asking Mr. Limbaugh for his opinion and only[i] Mr. Limbaugh seems somewhat unjournalistic to me.  Why would a print journal bother to print only Mr. Limbaugh's opinion; and where is that print journal now, when all the potentially wonderful publicity is flooding in and they stand to gain so much readership from it?  Any why aren't the other interviewees coming forward with their 400 words of wisdom?

     In short, it sounds like Mr. Limbaugh is trying to do some self-promotion the way he usually does self promotion.  What's the magazine, [i]Rush Limbaugh Week in Review
?

     Four hundred words are not very many when it comes time to explain anything with any nuance or depth to it, let alone context.  Mr. Limbaugh was absolutely explicit in what he said, which was, "I don't need 400 words.  I only need four."

     Why then are people talking about context here?  Liberals care about context, and they try to put things into context and they try to listen to the context of what other people are saying.  This is the context "I don't need 400 words.  I only need four."

     If he thought that he needed more, he could have said, "I hope Liberalism fails, but the country recovers quickly."
9 words.  If he wanted to offer speculation or explanation, he had 396 other words to use to offer context.  Clearly he gave us exactly the context he wanted.  And of course, he's tried to change the subject from President Obama to Liberalism.  When backed into a corner, change the subject.

     My own interest in context wants me to find out, what was the actual major print publication to which Mr. Limbaugh was supposed to be supplying his wisdom, should it actually exist, and what happened to the missing 396 words which would have given him the context that conservatives would want Liberals to pay attention to, and why isn't he sternly correcting those conservatives who act as though he wants them to make sure Obama fails.

     My hunch is that there is no difference to him that this is a distinction without a difference, as the saying goes.  

     I do, by the way, listen occasionally to Mr. Limbaugh.  Still.  I do find him distasteful and difficult.

     In looking up Move-on I found that Soros has committed a large amount of money there, though I remain somewhat puzzled what's wrong with that.  I've often hear Right wing folks get very upset at the mention of his name, which I confess does warm my heart a little, but I really have no notion why the man seems such an ogre over there.  In fact, it seems that he was once a member of the Carlyle Group and owned or owns a large number of shares in the highly questionable Halliburton company.  Bushes have been in and out of the Carlyle group for years and the Halliburton folks have very strong right wing connections.

     Soros has supported freedom movements in Eastern Europe and, while Reagan was supporting apartheid in South Africa, was working against it.  It looks to me that categorizing him specifically at one place politically might be a mistake.  He was a student of the Philosopher Karl Popper, whose work I don't understand, but would like to, so he has some interesting intellectual credentials.  

     I'd be interested to know what's the gripe about George Soros other than he's been seriously upset with George Bush?  So has most of America and most of the rest of the world, for that matter.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


17 posted 02-03-2009 05:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

What's wrong with Geoege Soros? Well, let's ask the Brits....

On Black Wednesday (September 16, 1992), Soros became immediately famous when he sold short more than $10 billion worth of pounds, profiting from the Bank of England's reluctance to either raise its interest rates to levels comparable to those of other European Exchange Rate Mechanism countries or to float its currency.
Finally, the Bank of England was forced to withdraw the currency from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and to devalue the pound sterling, and Soros earned an estimated US$ 1.1 billion in the process. He was dubbed "the man who broke the Bank of England."


Let's ask the French.....

In 1988, he was asked to join a takeover attempt of the French bank Socit Gnrale. He declined to participate in the bid but did later buy a number of shares in the company. French authorities began an investigation in 1989, and in 2002 a French court ruled that it was insider trading as defined under French securities laws and fined him $2 million, which was the amount that he made using the insider information.

Let's ask the Brits again....


George Soros, the billionaire investor famed for "breaking the Bank of England" has launched another assault in recent months, cashing in as Britain's currency slid.
The hedge fund manager, whose assault on sterling in 1992 was seen as responsible for causing the UK to leave the Exchange Rate Mechanism and forcing up interest rates to double-digit levels, said he had been selling off sterling in recent months. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4376432/George-Soros-the-billionaire-investor-has-been-selling-off-sterling.html


Let's ask the Jews...


Self-hating Jew Soros openly says that he is not supportive of Israel. His reference to his Jewishness and perhaps to the fact that he does not donate to Jewish organizations: "It did not express itself in a sense of tribal loyalty that would have led [Soros] to support Israel." Somebody should interrupt him from counting his money long enough to explain to him that Israel is a nation not a "tribe."
If the unhappy day ever comes when Israel is deserted by the rest of the world, Mr. Soros should understand that all the conversion in the world, as his mother did, or all the passing as a non-Jew, as he did to survive World War II, will not help. The ovens did not distinguish between rich or poor. Nor should all of Soros' money give him a "pass" when it comes to public repudiation. If you put a pile of cash upon a donkey's back underneath it, he is still a donkey.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1203/mason_soros.php3

Also, I could list many articles in which Soros's has stated that America is evil, that Israel is evil, a list of anti-Jewish organizations that he has supported large sums to.......but why not let you have some of the fun, which you could do should you ever use your search engines well enough to look for two sides to an issue.

I would say George has reason for being the darling of the Democrats.....

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


18 posted 02-03-2009 09:41 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:
Mike:

Also, I could list many articles in which Soros's has stated that America is evil, that Israel is evil, a list of anti-Jewish organizations that he has supported large sums to.......but why not let you have some of the fun, [my italics]which you could do should you ever use your search engines well enough to look for two sides to an issue.




What was requested was information on why conservatives hated George Soros.  Comment on my ability to use my search engines might marginally be appropriate.  Your judgement on my ability to see both sides of an issue was a personal and gratuitous jibe, since I was asking for exactly the sort of information that would enable me to do so and it was not available from the listings I found on Google, including the ones you listed.

     Currency trading is a business like any other that involves making bets on the economies of nations.  My understanding is that the British Government had managed themselves poorly at that time in economic terms, having followed the conservative governmental and economic policies for about a decade.  Soros bet against them, and won.  The currency was devalued.

     When George Bush after negotiation and long effort got the yen uncoupled from the dollar, the yen shot to new heights and Conservative America Had a party and celebrated a major economic victory.  I believe you were one of the people who celebrated at that party as well.  That party was the celebration of the devaluation of the dollar, which sank to historic lows against the yen.  Devaluation is a process that may be spun as you will.
I knew that Soros had made money from the devaluation of the Pound; I did not, and still do not understand why conservatives find this a hateful and depraved action for him.  I turned to my friend Mike, who is a conservative, in the hopes of being informed, and I still hope for some thoughtful analysis.

     The French example remains in litigation after 14 years because the initial case wasn't so good.  French courts, if you'll remember, are set up differently than American Courts, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution.  In France, the burden of proof is on the defendant, and the presumption is of guilt.  If a case hasn't been locked down by the state in 14 years with all those advantages, there's something very wrong with the case.  

     The Daily Telegraph article, which I confess not to having seen before was not available for review.  An error massage came up when I tried to bring up the citation.  A date would be helpful before I try to respond, though, since the article could be from anytime between 1992 and the present.

     As for the article on anti-semitism, it's a shoddy charge for one Jew to chuck at another.  I don't know Jackie Mason's co-author on the article, but what I've enjoyed about Jackie Mason in the past has been his humor, and that's what was on display in the article today.  It was a gloriously funny piece of humor, and it put Jackie Mason's talents right out front, where they should be.  He shone and he crackled.

     I could read him or listen to him happily at length.

     I loved his analogy about simply because a man's a great baseball player doesn't make him a financial genius; you probably don't want to listen to his stock tips.  Simply because Soros is a marvelous financier doesn't make him  somebody you want to listen to for political advice.  And of course, Jackie Mason's right about that:  Just because Jackie Mason's a great comedian doesn't make him any good as a politician.  That follows the same train of logic, and that's true, too.

     George Soros supported polish freedom and the Solidarity movement in Poland, and supported freedom for people in eastern Europe when that was a financially risky thing to do.  He supported freedom in South Africa when support of the apartheid-supporting South-African Government was the U.S. Policy under Ronald Reagan.

     I don't know that he doesn't support any Jewish causes. It sounds to me that he is anti-zionist, and not anti-Semitic.  Folks on the Jewish right often forget that Zionism is a political movement, and they tend to overstate the degree to which they support all Jews.  Even within Israel, they don't support all Jews, they merely pretend that they do.  They support the absurd fantasy that the state of Israel is the only State in the world that appears to fly with one wing.

     Jackie Mason is a Zionist and pretends that that is the only way for a Jew to be.  Moses Maimonides wrote about conversions and pretending to belong to another religion as life saving measures during times of stress almost a thousand years ago.  Maimonides says that they should not be criticized.  Mason thinks differently.  Of course Maimonides never played Vegas.

     There is more to Israel than simply the country.  If Soros is clunky about calling it a tribe and he is I'd still maintain that there's something larger that the State of Israel that might be fruitfully understood by using the word in a larger sense.

     Information about why Conservative hate George Soros is still of interest.
      
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


19 posted 02-03-2009 11:58 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Information about why Conservative hate George Soros is still of interest.

Bob, I've never referred to myself as as spokesman for conservatives, just because I happen to be one. You would have to ask them. As for me, just the topic we are referring to would be enough.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


20 posted 02-04-2009 01:17 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


I saw some footage on CNN of both Democrats and Republicans cautiously talking about at least the possibility of getting some passage on a recovery bill going.  One senator, in an interview I saw, was asked he he wanted to voice additional criticism about Tom Dashiel, and I actually saw the man quietly wave the reporter off with what sounded like a "No thank you."  I wish I'd caught the man's name.  I think he'll make a tough but worthy opponent some day, if I read him correctly.

     A startling but potentially useful possibility came to mind that I thought that I might share to get the reaction of any who would care to, offer an opinion:

     It may be possible that people are going to work together, Republicans and Democrats alike, to pass a bailout package.

     Is it a possibility that an epidemic of civility has broken out among the Congressmen and Senators of our great nation?  Might it be possibly be true that they have decided to put the good of the country ahead of their own partisan interests, and to work out deals that will be of benefit to the majority of the citizenry the majority of the time?  History and common sense argue against it, of course, and there were occasional somewhat silly outbursts of business as usual.  To get specific about those is, I think, merely trying to cast blame.  There's always plenty to go around at that picnic table.  Goodness!, nobody's about to starve there.

     Even Senator Reid, whom I understand is not highly favored by many here somehow I always think of Lou Reed when I think of the Senator.  My mind works in mysterious ways.  Apparently my super power is the ability to cloud my own mind, and there's never been much of a market for that outside my house. Even Senator Reid, as I was saying, before I so rudely interrupted myself, was talking about removing heartburn from the bill.  Hopefully for both sides.

     That would be very nice.

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Let me get this straight. Is it actuall Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors