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
 Random Thoughts on Limbaugh and Glenn Be   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ]
 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149
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

Random Thoughts on Limbaugh and Glenn Beck

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


125 posted 10-22-2009 01:37 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'm curious, Mike. Is quoting Mao worse than quoting someone quoting Mao?

Nope, unless quoting Rush is worse than quoting someone quoting Rush (like the White House, for example)
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


126 posted 10-22-2009 02:58 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Mao was talking about revolutions, guerrilla warfare and power.  

     Ron, your comment is interesting, but  probably practical only in terms of symmetrical warfare — two bodies of approximately identical size and resource meeting as equals.  This is pretty much land warfare as it evolved in the west.  It has some apparent exceptions, for example, the three hundred at Thermopalae, but the asymmetry was more apparent than actual.  The engagement was due to a local disparity in forces, and the Greeks overall held  superiority in the vital naval power.

     Asymmetrical warfare forces the larger power to bankrupt the itself in the conflict against the weaker power.  Hence, the larger guns are not particularly an issue in these sorts of conflicts, and the larger power must tie down disproportionately large and well armed forces to contain small forces.  Using the model from Mao Zedong, Castro tied down the Cuban government and its army and police forces using at times as few as 50 men total.  Some would say many fewer at times.

     The model should not be only useful to Democrats, and, in fact is not.  That Mike suggests it is is an insult to the flexibility of the thinking of the United States Army, who has used the basic Maoist principles of insurgency and counter-insurgency in forming the Green Berets and other special forces groups.  Unlike Mike, these folks are willing to recognize innovative and useful thinking where they see it, and to adapt it to the defense of our country.

     And as John should recognize, the marine raiders in the second world war picked up some of these same principles.  In Viet Nam, the Marine Recon people used many of the same principles to good effect.

     Had we not been able to adapt some of these principles of insurgency and counterinsurgency — which formally found their way into the army under Kennedy, but had been there already for quite a while — we would not have made alliances with the Hmong, for example.  Nor would we have been able to put together the alliances in Afghanistan that allowed us to do the initial effective work there after 9/11.  All of this was counterinsurgency work, all of it based on some of these same principles of fitting in with the people, living with the people, trying to understand the needs of the people and channel their needs and wants, that Mao outlined.

     This is political Philosophy.  It's all fairly pragmatic and useful stuff.  It's even useful military philosophy, which is why they even teach some of it at that noted bastion of communist values, West Point.  Insurgency-counterinsurgency.  They even teach Sun-Tzu, who covers some of the same ground, because he's freaking smart as well.  Used to be, they even covered some of this stuff in business schools.  I don't know if they still do or not, but there's no reason why they shouldn't.  It's practical management theory.  Find out what your market wants.  Find out what your market is getting now and what they feel ripped off by from their current supplier.  Identify with your current market and find a way of giving your market what it wants in a more satisfying way, cheaper, and in a way that builds some brand loyalty.  Watch your competition get more and more demanding in an effort to demand their market share back, as though it was their by right.

     Use American Cars as an example versus Japanese cars as an example of a marketing strategy following these lines successfully for the Japanese.  Look at our initial work in Afghanistan as our successful work of the same marketing strategy on the other.  It can work both ways.

     Now look at what happens when the marketing strategy isn't followed through in Afghanistan today, and when you give the other side a chance to turn it around on you.  Insurgency, counterinsurgency.

     Simply because Mao gave some of the most coherent explanations of the process, doesn't mean that he's wrong or that he's as hysterical as Glenn Beck or as opportunistic as Rush Limbaugh.  Mao was a monster and a genius, and I mean both.  No matter how many times I acknowledge the reality of his being a monster and condemn him for it, I seem to have a terrible time getting any understanding of the flip side of the man's character.

     I can't really fault anybody for this, I guess, but it is something you run across in history from time to time.  An Alexander, a Julius Caesar, a Ghengis Khan, a Napoleon.  He is distinguished from a Limbaugh or a Beck because a Limbaugh or a Beck at his most outsized is hick-up in a hurricane, his good and his evil both, I think; while a Mao is a hurricane itself.  Not to attempt to understand a Limbaugh or a Beck is an irritation; not to understand a Mao Zedong may well lead you to misread the age.  Something that, in this particular era, may not matter all that much at all.    
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


127 posted 10-22-2009 03:03 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:


Seems quoting Mao is quite popular among democrats. Perhaps they should change their name to demaocrats!  




    Your suggestion may amaont to Maofeasence, Mao-over.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


128 posted 10-22-2009 06:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

That Mike suggests it is is an insult to the flexibility of the thinking of the United States Army, who has used the basic Maoist principles of insurgency and counter-insurgency in forming the Green Berets and other special forces groups.

You never cease to amaze, Bob. You portend to know how I feel, what I suggest and my favorite color, I suppose, not to mention my choice of brie or mozarella...all equally inaccurate.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


129 posted 10-22-2009 06:48 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

"Besides, I find that ignoring certain people carries fewer side effects than blood pressure medication."


Hint taken . . .

.  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


130 posted 10-22-2009 07:25 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Limbaugh and Beck are not political leaders or tyrants, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Ahmidinajhad, wielding life and death power over people.

Where do these tyrants come from, these abusers of power, these mass murderers, these butchers? Are they mentally ill? Possessed of or by evil? What do they ultimately gain by destroying their own people and countries? What is the point? Power? What good does it do them when they are in the grave? I'll never understand it. And how could any sane, freedom loving person admire them?

John, you do my blood pressure just fine. I appreciate your contributions.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


131 posted 10-22-2009 07:34 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Btw, for one of the few times in recent memory I applaud mainstream news. Obama tried to pull a slick one by banning FOX from the 5 news agencies invited to interview one of czars today, the same 5 that have been invited since 1997. The other four agencies declined to participate if FOX was excluded and the White House had to back down and invite them. That had to be a real blow to Obama and it would do him well to rethink his childish war on FOX. He has a better chance defeating the Taliban.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


132 posted 10-22-2009 08:22 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The White House’s extraordinary assault on the Fox News Channel will end in tears – and not for Rupert Murdoch, Fox’s owner. The Obama administration has embarked on a high-risk strategy of shooting the messenger, in effect blaming its plummeting poll ratings on alleged political bias at the number one 24-hour cable news network. As Anita Dunn, the Mao-quoting White House communications director put it in an interview with The New York Times:

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

As Dunn’s statement illustrates, this is an overtly political campaign – and one that is doomed to failure, as it will ensure that even more Americans end up tuning in to Fox shows. The United States is a nation built around the principles of free speech, limited government, and free enterprise, and it is highly unusual for a US administration to launch an authoritarian vendetta against an individual news station. It smacks of mean-spiritedness as well as desperation, and is an approach that is already backfiring, with Fox’s ratings receiving an added boost from the huge publicity. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100014310/why-the-white-house-will-lose-its-war-against-fox-news/
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


133 posted 10-23-2009 03:30 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Excluding Fox is silly.  They are a news organization, much as I dislike their politics and their methods, and they have a right to report and present the news in the disturbing and to me distasteful way that they do.  

     For The White House to pretend that Fox is even making the least pretense of neutrality and is trying to do anything but put forward an opposition agenda, on the other hand, is pretty silly as well.  Actually, it would be close to politically suicidal.  

     The problem is that the Democrats really don't understand how to be appropriately cutting and nasty in return, and are somewhat big fat stupid dumb targets for the Fox network because they keep trying to behave in some sort of gentlemanly fashion.  They need to learn and practice the sort of cut and parry that's been the mainstay of the English House of Commons for centuries, enjoy it, develop a sincerely vicious pro-Liberal Press that is fully as rude as Fox but on the other side of the fence, and then simply get on with the business of governance.

     We need less restraint in the Freedom of Speech, not more of it.  We need several Gore Vidal types and types more down and dirty to reply to those Republicans of the same inclination.  Also more facts, which Republicans have always had trouble with, and apparently gave up on several generations ago.
  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


134 posted 10-23-2009 08:01 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Democrats really don't understand how to be appropriately cutting and nasty in return

LOL! Apparently. Bob, you don't watch much of Oberman, Rachel or Randi Rhodes. A quick google search could turn up a wealth of cutting and nastiness on their part. Problem is that not a whole lot of others do, either, and it doesn't fly that well. It's always better to provide something factual along with the rants, which they have a problem doing.

Don't think this thin-skin characteristic trait of Obama's is going unnoticed by other world leaders. Seeing how an opposing tv station can get him to lose his cool so badly he has to go after them personally is not a good thing for him. For a country known for personal rights and freedom of speech, watching him trying to ostracize a news station due to their criticism of him (along with the Chamber of Congress and others he has decided to personally challenge by name) hurts the reputation of him as a leader and also the country as a defender of personal freedoms. His low boiling point is something for them to use one day. Never good for a president to show that he can be shaken, not stirred.

Perhaps he should watch a rerun of Inherit the Wind...
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


135 posted 10-23-2009 08:11 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

How fast has Glenn Beck's popularity grown?
He had 400,000 viewers when he was on CNN.  After switching to FOX Cable News, his viewership has grown to around 4.5-5 million viewers a night, and that is at 5 PM, traditionally a 'dead' period in news since people aren't home yet.  His show is repeated at 2 AM and doesn't even get the 10 or 11PM or 12, or 1am rerun spot and he still gets another couple of million viewers then.  
O'Reilly, the #1 Cable News spot for the past 8 years, has 5.5-6 million viewers nightly.
Keith Olbermann has around 650,000 viewers a night.  Beck's ratings are nearly 8 times his.

Beck has grown a net of 4 million viwers since going to FOX in Feb, and at this rate of growth, he will have 12 million viewers by his '1 year point' at FOX.  

You are witnessing a modern news phenomenon.   Candle in the wind?  maybe

(I'll try to sneak in here from time to time on work breaks.)
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


136 posted 10-23-2009 08:45 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

“Defend Fox from the likes of Anita Dunn? She’s been attacked for extolling Mao’s political philosophy in a speech at a high-school graduation. But the critics miss the surpassing stupidity of her larger point: She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one’s own choices. Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book?

The White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high schoolers without uttering inanities. She and her cohorts are now to instruct the country on truth and objectivity?”


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTNhZGQxYzVmMjU4NjY3NTIwMWFjMDQ0ZjJlODM0MzA=

.

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


137 posted 10-23-2009 04:27 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



  
Dear Huan Yi,

                    If I wanted a subscription to The National Review, I would have bought a subscription to The National Review.  They are more or less useless to me except as source of unformation (a neologism, not a spelling error) unless you supply context and background from your own thinking, especially if they are opinion.  The National Review is long on opinion, but it is your opinion that matters to me here; not theirs.

     If you don't care enough to formulate your own thoughts on a matter, it's pretty much a waste of my time to be offered somebody else's as a weak-tea substitute. If you want to add them in addition, I will read them happily for an extra understanding of what you think.

     Otherwise, each of us could simply supply favorite excerpts from commentators of the day and plug them in here without bothering to bother ourselves with actually formulating our own thoughts or reading anybody else's.  

     We could even write a program — those of us who are computer literate enough to do so, which certainly excludes me — and let our computers do it for us, and avoid the actual thinking process entirely.

Yours, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


138 posted 10-23-2009 04:41 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, John, what's wrong with you??? At least gives us some  clips from the Huffington Post, which seems to be a favorite among some of our more illustrious liberals....it's unbiased, so I'm told
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


139 posted 10-23-2009 05:05 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



    
Dear Mike,

          Nah, these guys aren't even close.  They have this problem with making too much sense and sticking close to the facts, which I believe we need, by the way, but they aren't  aggressive the way the English Press can get with its questions and its follow-ups.  They may look aggressive to you, but they're quite polite.  Obermann is a man with a bit of an edge to him, but both he and Maddow stay pretty much within the limits of the truth, near as I can see, and so does Randi Rhodes.  I do dearly love  your reaction to that woman, I must confess it.  If everything you said about her was true, about her inability to find an audience, and her lack of talent, you'd think she'd be off the air by now, wouldn't you?  And you'd think Rachel Maddow would have no audience at all instead of having a radio show, where she started and now a tv show as well that's also on multiple times a day.

     As for Freedom of speech and Presidents of the United States having thin skins and their administrations not going after networks and broadcasters, I guess you'd be thinking that certain broadcasters from Texas investigating certain stories about certain Presidents in the Air National Guard wouldn't fit in the same category.  And that their pressure on a certain CBS network that I shouldn't mention probably wouldn't qualify as undue pressure and that it wouldn't be construed as more severe pressure than this because of course, the administration in power at that time wasn't Democratic.

     As I recall at that time the pressure was entirely justifiable, even though it brought the investigation to what seemed to me to be a premature close, and it has never been re-opened.  Which is a pity.  There has certainly been more than enough time to operate a lot of document shredders since, and not simply on the reputations of previously well thought of reporters.

     I suspect that a case of Republican amnesia has set in about these events, and that to the minds of many Republicans, The Fox Network has been perfectly fair and balanced and does not merit attention being drawn to the fact that it is the voice of the Opposition in this country. It would be foolish for the administration not to recognize this.

     It would be foolish as well to attempt to cut Fox News from access to administration news sources, though, I should remind you, that this was one of the tactics that the Republican White House did use, at times trying to cut Helen Thomas from her privileged status as senior White House reporter, and packing the press pool with some very strange "reporters" indeed who got access that precluded access for some more experienced and tougher minded reporters.  Some of my Republican friends may have forgotten these tactics of press management as well.

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


140 posted 10-23-2009 05:12 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

           Hope you're feeling better Mike.

quote:


Yes, John, what's wrong with you??? At least gives us some  clips from the Huffington Post, which seems to be a favorite among some of our more illustrious liberals....it's unbiased, so I'm told  




     I would, in this case, make the same objection, Mike, if The Huffington Post was being used instead of making a comment of one's own and using the quote as support or as a springboard, if it were done as a more or less regular practice.

     If you feel the need for some clips from the Huffington Post, you might consider subscribing.  I don't myself.  But I hadn't expected to see this uncharacteristic fascination in you, Mike.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


141 posted 10-23-2009 05:30 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

They may look aggressive to you, but they're quite polite.  Obermann is a man with a bit of an edge to him, but both he and Maddow stay pretty much within the limits of the truth, near as I can see, and so does Randi Rhodes.

Why does your assessment of them not surprise me? Anyone who would call Randi Rhodes polite has lost all sense of reality...or is so completely biased they can't see it any other way.

And you'd think Rachel Maddow would have no audience at all instead of having a radio show, where she started and now a tv show as well that's also on multiple times a day.

Ozzie Ozbourne has a tv show....so did Rocky the Flying Squirrel. As far as her having an audience, compared to O'reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck, she basically doesn't.

As far as the rest of your comment, it is simply reverting to the finger pointing tactic used  so frequently here to avoid talking about the current situation. It is just a defensive move designed to dodge what is happening now. If you feel Obama is right in this Chicago-style "bring it on, jerkwad" approach to a news organization., just say so. I you have issues about any alleged msitreatment about Helen Thomas, start a thread on it. If you have issues about mistreatment of reporters with reference to Bush activities in the National Guard, start a thread on it. Otherwise, perhaps you could stick to the current situation....one would hope.

thanks for the health concern. I hope YOU feel better. After the way you jumped on John without provocation, I'm thinking you may be feeling edgier than I am
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


142 posted 10-23-2009 06:45 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear Mike,

           Sorry about the edgy feeling.

quote:


Why does your assessment of them not surprise me? Anyone who would call Randi Rhodes polite has lost all sense of reality...or is so completely biased they can't see it any other way.




    Very sorry about the edgy feeling.

quote:

Ozzie Osbourne has a tv show....so did Rocky the Flying Squirrel. As far as her having an audience, compared to O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck, she basically doesn't.



     But Rachel Maddow and Rocky the Flying Squirrel are witty, and have redeeming social value and are on the side of goodness and light.  And Ozzie Osborne — I think — only pretends to be a minion of Satan.

quote:

As far as the rest of your comment, it is simply reverting to the finger pointing tactic used  so frequently here to avoid talking about the current situation.



     You may have missed the part where I said that I didn't think picking on Fox was a good idea, and that I thought that the Administration shouldn't do it.  Don't let my agreement get in the way, though.

quote:

It is just a defensive move designed to dodge what is happening now. If you feel Obama is right in this Chicago-style "bring it on, jerkwad" approach to a news organization., just say so.



     Actually, saying The Administration, and hence the President himself by extension, was wrong in this matter would more or less sidestep the need for any defense, wouldn't it?  The administration was wrong.  Besides, I think you must be exaggerating at least a little.  I can't imagine any President of The United States actually being out of whack enough to say "Bring it One!" in public, no matter what he might think in private.

quote:

I you have issues about any alleged mistreatment about Helen Thomas, start a thread on it. If you have issues about mistreatment of reporters with reference to Bush activities in the National Guard, start a thread on it. Otherwise, perhaps you could stick to the current situation....one would hope.



     Your comments about this president and this White House and the implication that this is a unique event more or less precludes that, Mike.  You have broadened out the range of things yourself, and I am responding to your difficulty in staying focused on this particular issue.  Had you not wished to go off on the unique evils and faults of President Obama, nothing would have needed to be said, would it?

quote:

thanks for the health concern. I hope YOU feel better.



     Thank you for the concern.  My physician has had to cut my meds because Blue Cross of California has seen fit to say that the dose I've been taking for several years is not the one that it thinks is appropriate.  This has had unpleasant consequences that I would rather not go into here, but I would say that, no, I am not feeling better at all; I am feeling decidedly worse.  Thank you for asking, though.  I may in fact be feeling edgier than you are.  Whether that is to the good or not, I have no idea in the long run.  My concern is for the level of pain that you have to deal with.  I do not like to see friends in pain.  I do not like to see anybody in pains, but people I like, I really don't like to see in pain.  This sometimes makes people uncomfortable, my father in law used to get uncomfortable with this sometimes.  It is my flaw, and I acknowledge it.

     As to jumping on John without provocation, I am sorry you see it that way.  I like what John has to say for himself.  I respect his thoughts about a number of subjects, though don't always agree with him.  His notions about honor have always been particularly moving to me, as are his notions about duty and country — again, I don't always agree, but he puts himself very very well.  His reading is almost always well chosen, especially his reading, recently on Stalin, I thought was good, and I think we share an interest on military history, strategy and tactics.

     When I don't hear his thoughts, and hear instead the thoughts of some yahoo who, to my mind, isn't fit to shine John's shoes, I get upset.  As I said, if I wanted a subscription to The National Review, I'd get one, the same way as I'd get a subscription to the Huffington Post, if I wanted one.

     Much as it may upset you to hear it, I actually do hope you're feeling well.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


143 posted 10-23-2009 07:05 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

"some yahoo"


Charles Krauthammer?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


144 posted 10-23-2009 10:39 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Here'ssome proof about the "politeness" of Randi Rhades. I had to edit a bit to post it..feel  freeto read the unedited portion if you wish.

Air America Host Randi Rhodes Suspended For Calling Hillary A "Big (act of performing sex) (promiscuous person)"


Air America host Randi Rhodes called both Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton "promiscuous persons)" in a recent appearance, seen below. Rhodes, who hosts a weekday radio show on Air America, said to the cheering crowd, "What a (promiscuous person) Geraldine Ferraro is! She's such a (act of performing sex) (promiscuous person)!" She then proceeded to say, "Hillary is a big (act of performing sex) (promiscuous person), too" to a mixed audience reaction. "You know why she's a big (act of performing sex) (promiscuous person)? Because her deal is always, 'Read the fine print, (rectum)!'"


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/03/air-america-host-randi-rh_n_94863.html


You must be very proud of having such a polite and decent person on your side..
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


145 posted 10-23-2009 10:45 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

One day after Air America libtalker Randi Rhodes was suspended for calling Hillary Clinton a "big (see above)", her on-air fate remains uncertain. Meanwhile, the left side of the Internet has been busy debating her actions and potential punishment. Could this be the end of the Rhodes?

Officially, the network's behavior has been peculiar, with a vague statement serving as its only public communication on the matter. And while it has allowed written comments on that press release, other Air America hosts have steered clear of it. That has especially been the case for Randi's fill-in host, Sam Seder, who deflected calls on the subject yesterday.

Rachel Maddow also avoided it entirely, a real mistake given red hot levels of listener interest. Lefty hosts still don't know a great topic even when it is right in front of them.
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/04/liberals-debate-fate-of-randi-rhodes.html

Well, we know what happened to her now, don't we?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


146 posted 10-23-2009 10:53 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Just how far are lefty pundits willing to go to smear Sarah Palin? On behalf of the "progressive" movement, libtalker Randi Rhodes seems determined to sink to new depths of moral depravity, with the limits of imagination as her only impediment.

Less than a week after her wildly dishonest claim that John McCain was "well-treated" during his wartime imprisonment in Vietnam, Rhodes is at it again, this time making a strong inference that Palin likes to sleep with teenage boys.

It's further evidence of a widespread smear campaign that involves lefty bloggers, libtalkers and the mainstream news media. With this gang, the ends apparently justify the means. That there isn't a shred of evidence to back up any of their claims is irrelevant: this is full-scale character assassination.
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/09/libtalker-sarah-palin-has-unhealthy.html

Democrats don't know how to be nasty and cutting, Bob? Really??
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


147 posted 10-23-2009 10:55 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

gentlemen,.... really?  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


148 posted 10-23-2009 10:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Randi Rhodes calls Hillary voters "white trash"

by ryeland, Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:21:41 PM EST

I hope Nova M Radio is happy with their new talk show host, the Left's own Rush Limbaugh. Randi Rhodes is a disgrace and an embarrassment to Democrats, and I can't imagine why any organization (political campaign or business) would want to be associated with her hate-filled rhetoric.

In the first five minutes of her show today, Randi let this one go:

"The Clinton campaign describes Hillary's voters as older, white, and undereducated. Or as we called them in my neighborhood: white trash."

Randi followed this, without a hint of irony or self-awareness, with a screed about how Hillary is an elitist (in part, because she loaned her campaign $5 million). Tell us more about elitism, Randi. How do "white trash" fit into your analysis?

I don't know if Randi Rhodes is helping or hurting Barack Obama, but I do know that she's hurting the Democratic Party with this kind of divisive, classist language. White trash? That's how she chooses to describe the majority of Democrats who voted in this year's primaries? I wouldn't be surprised if Randi finds herself back on the unemployment line soon.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/22/232141/667

Yep, she's a real winner, Bob. That's why she got kicked out of Florida...
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


149 posted 10-23-2009 11:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Dobbs blasts Olbermann: 'punk, liar, psycho, hallucinating'
politico ^

Posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 11:20:03 PM by maccaca

Last night, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann not only named CNN's Lou Dobbs the "worst person in the world" but called him a "soft-focus, birther-embracing former star, a man who during the week makes millions off bashing immigrants, especially Hispanics, even though his wife and kids are Hispanic."

Olbermann followed up with some questions: "What do you want, Lou? To come take a swing at me? That Lou Dobbs? Meds? Have you had your tranquilizer dart yet today, Lou?"

Well, Dobbs didn't like that, claiming on his radio show today that Olbermann is "hallucinating" and "making up stories." And Dobbs rattled up a few choice descriptions for the MSNBC host: "punk," "liar," "psycho" and "fool."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2309329/posts

More politeness! Problem is, Bob, what you see is a big lack of class...
 
 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 >> Random Thoughts on Limbaugh and Glenn Be   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] 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