Limbaugh Attacks ThinkProgress’ “Extreme” Alito Coverage
Limbaugh Attacks ThinkProgress’ “Extreme” Alito Coverage
Apparently, Rush Limbaugh didn’t care for a post we published yesterday, Samuel Alito’s America. From today’s Rush Limbaugh show:
Byron York sent me this note that the Center for American Progress has tried to rewrite Senator Kennedy’s famous Robert Bork’s America, and here’s basically what it says. “Samuel Alito would overturn Roe vs. Wade. Samuel Alito would allow race based discrimination. Sam Alito would allow disability based discrimination. Sam Alito would strike down the Family and Medical Leave Act. Sam Alito supports unauthorized strip searches. Sam Alito is hostile toward immigrants,” and they cite their cases to give evidence of this.
This is what we want. We want these people to come out and show just how far out of the mainstream they are. We want them to illustrate that it is they who are extreme on all of these things, folks.
This is a bit confusing. Limbaugh doesn’t question any of our claims, he just says we are “out of the mainstream.” It’s out of the mainstream to be against racial discrimination? It’s out of the mainstream to support the Family and Medical Leave Act? Apparently, you have to be a dittohead to understand the logic.
Special thanks to right-wing pundit Byron York for sending around our work. Sometimes it’s easy to forget how much you care.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It’s the OxyContin – everything looks extreme…
November 1st, 2005 at 3:24 pmWhat a freaking moron. He is such a fat fvcking slob. I don’t even know how the NeoCons can find him enjoyable.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:25 pmThat book is already on the remainder list already?
That’s a hoot. I remember seeing the idiot on Jon Stewarts show this summer.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:25 pmfilibuster first! If limpdick is pissed, I’m happy. Rightwing,EXSTREAMEST,Preacher dictators like him can’t stand to be talked back to…HI RUST, I see you ck this blogg…noticed the missletoe attached to my shirt tail?
November 1st, 2005 at 3:26 pm“People….I believe some accusations are….(ruffling a newspaper)….so ridiculous as to not warrant a response…..so as not….(desk slam with hand)….not to dignify the…accusation.”
November 1st, 2005 at 3:26 pmThis is the response that Rush would JUSTIFIABLY give.
Turk has spoken, Rush lives in all of us!
ie- you have to check the amazon.com link
November 1st, 2005 at 3:26 pmIf Rush could spin any faster he’d take off like a helicopter, or burrow into the center of the earth, or turn faster than a centrifuge caught in a category 6 tornado.
Take Rush’s critique as a badge of honor, TP.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:35 pmer, wear Rush’s critique, bleh
November 1st, 2005 at 3:35 pmHonestly, trying to undermine Alito with his own record is just SOOOOO, wrong!
Liberals seem to think that just because they have ream after ream of proof that this nominee is a whacked-out, prehistoric throwback, they can say whatever they want.
Mr. Snerdley, come in here and let me snort some hillbilly heroin off your jiggly man-ass!
November 1st, 2005 at 3:36 pmI think I can explain this logic, as much as there can be logic in that alternate universe of theirs. Limbaugh lists what the ThinkProgress piece claimed, presumably to point out how out of the mainstream it is, and they’re all things that he supports. Since he has to find a stance from which to ridicule the article, he comes up with, “This is what we want!” He pretends that those positions are in the mainstream. I mean, of course Alito supports these things—- that’s what’s so great about him from Limbaugh’s point of view. So why bother bringing it up. Of course he agrees with it; he just has to ridicule it anyway, because that’s what he does. And that’s all he does.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:43 pmAnyone know where I can hire a gullable maid who does not speak the langauge and has prescription for painkillers with refills? Hook me up TP. Pleeeeeze
November 1st, 2005 at 3:48 pmuh…i don’t hink so mass.lib. ; rush says: “This is what we want. We want these people to come out and show just how far out of the mainstream they are. We want them to illustrate that it is they who are extreme on all of these things, folks” sounds like the opposite of your explanation…he says our stance on these things make us “extreme”…well, ok…
but also “extreme” is watching and listening to the repugs on c-span right now…woohoo! talk about pissed!
November 1st, 2005 at 4:03 pmCheck this out…
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/1/90909.shtml
November 1st, 2005 at 4:06 pm#9 dog- I don’t agree with you BUT….that is a funny post! YOU THE MAN!
November 1st, 2005 at 4:13 pmTurk, fan of Rush and the dogman
“Limbaugh didn’t care for a post”
November 1st, 2005 at 4:25 pmI am to assume “The rude pundit” is part of his required reading.
Poor Rush. Not much of a draw, is he?
November 1st, 2005 at 4:26 pmI believe that Think Progress’remarks about Alito are quite restrained, in view of Samuel Alito’s judicial record. Alito says that the federal government has no power to regulate machine guns. Does “Machine Gun” Sam also think the government doesn’t have the power to regulate anti-tank guns and hand held missiles? Sam also thinks that a woman has to notify her husband in order to get an abortion. Does the Machine Gunner think that a woman is her husband’s property? Machine Gunner’s rulings indicate also has little faith in government regulation of the economy. Does he long for the days of child labor and the sweatshop? His record on enviornmental matters is dismal. He has no concern about global warming, right? Obviously this mild-mannered man is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He is a dangerous extremist. He’s way out of the mainstream and is nothing but red meat thrown to the ultra-right base that now controls and terrifies the cowardly Bush, who wouldn’t allow the precious “up and down” vote for Harriet Meyers that Bush used to so highly prize.
November 1st, 2005 at 4:33 pmED… LOL
November 1st, 2005 at 4:33 pm“Sam also thinks that a woman has to notify her husband in order to get an abortion”
Let’s get our facts straight: This was a case brought by Planned Parenthood which faced off against a state law approved by voters and the DEMOCRATIC governor, which simply stated the woman would notify her husband of her abortion – not “in order to get” one, or even need her husband’s approval.
How can anyone, especially a man, disagree with that law? Not knowing your wife is aborting your child? How cold is that?
Alito sided with the STATE ( see: state’s right’s ) and the Democratic governor. Planned Parenthood sided against the voters, against state’s rights, and against the democratic governor….interesting…
November 1st, 2005 at 4:42 pmEd #13–that’s great!
November 1st, 2005 at 4:43 pm#9..ewwww, isn’t his jiggly man ass where the oozing buttcyst is? I almost hurled. I can’t stand to listen to that vulgar pigboy, much less listen to his bullcrap.
#19, perhaps you haven’t considered the situation of an abused wife? I personally left my husband and had my child without him but you never know what kind of situation someone can be in. On the reverse, do you think a man should have to notify his wife if he decides to have a vasectomy?
November 1st, 2005 at 4:59 pm#13 – Too funny!
Judd, I would take Limbaugh saying TP is out of the mainstream as a lovely compliment, considering the MSM these days. Send him a thank you note!
November 1st, 2005 at 5:07 pmLimbaugh never discusses the issues. He dances all around them; makes derogatory remarks and personal attacks; he is always negative and goes after the other guy, but he never takes a stand for his views with supportive material… He’s a mouthpiece for the Cheney talkingpoints…
November 1st, 2005 at 5:42 pmComment on #19 by Gino. 1) Your tone almost crosses the line of civility, in my opinion. 2) I made many allegations but you (incorrectly) address only one of them, which, in logic, is called a Straw Man argument. 3)You evidently have not read the Pennsylvania Satute 3209, The Pennyslvania Abortion act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989. The Supreme Court disagreed with Machine Gun Sam’s position on the statute. The court stated, “It requires spousal notification in connection with obtaining an abortion. The husband’s interest in the life of the child his wife is carrying does not permit the State to empower him with this troubling degree of authority over his wife. The contrary view leads to consequences reminiscent of the common law. A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices. If a husband’s interest in the potential life of the child outweighs a wife’s liberty, the State could require a married woman to notify her husband before she uses a post-fertilization contraceptive. Perhaps next in line would be a statute requiring pregnant married women to notify their husbands before engaging in conduct causing risks to the fetus. After all, if the husband’s interest in the fetus’ safety is a sufficient predicate for state regulation, the State could reasonably conclude that pregnant wives should notify their husbands before drinking alcohol or smoking. Perhaps married women should notify their husbands before using contraceptives or before undergoing any type of surgery that may have complications affecting the husband’s interest in his wife’s reproductive organs. And if a husband’s interest justifies notice in any of these cases, one might reasonably argue that it justifies exactly what the Danforth Court held it did not justify — a requirement of the husband’s consent as well. A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.” 4) You state, Gino, “The husband’s interest in the life of the child his wife is carrying does not permit the State to empower him with this troubling degree of authority over his wife. The contrary view leads to consequences reminiscent of the common law. A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices. If a husband’s interest in the potential life of the child outweighs a wife’s liberty, the State could require a married woman to notify her husband before she uses a post-fertilization contraceptive. Perhaps next in line would be a statute requiring pregnant married women to notify their husbands before engaging in conduct causing risks to the fetus. After all, if the husband’s interest in the fetus’ safety is a sufficient predicate for state regulation, the State could reasonably conclude that pregnant wives should notify their husbands before drinking alcohol or smoking. Perhaps married women should notify their husbands before using contraceptives or before undergoing any type of surgery that may have complications affecting the husband’s interest in his wife’s reproductive organs. And if a husband’s interest justifies notice in any of these cases, one might reasonably argue that it justifies exactly what the Danforth Court held it did not justify — a requirement of the husband’s consent as well. A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children. 4) Gino, you state, “How can anyone, especially a man, disagree with that law? Not knowing your wife is aborting your child? How cold is that?” The truth of an argument is not determined by one’s sexual status. My disagreement with you over your position here is explained in the Supreme Court’s decision quoted, in part, above. Have a nice day. I look forward to other discussions with you.
November 1st, 2005 at 6:19 pmRemember folks MONEY LAUNDERING, for Mr. L it will not go away and he just blows smoke up everyone’s hiney that will blindly listen. This the same guy that said during his interview with VP. Cheny at the height of the Meirs debacle paragraph #10 page 2 of 3. Quote ” well the early line of criticism right now is focusing on the fact…”cronyism”, that she’s simly a crony, that Bush is using this opportunity to reward a loyal supporter of his, and I’m..This, Mr. Vice President, frankly suprises me. This is the best they’ve got, and I know they’re investigating her and they’re going to find some things. They’ve got to raise money for their groups, so there will be a fight to an extent. They will find some outrageous things
November 1st, 2005 at 6:26 pmabout her just to keep thier fundraising coming in but the fact is right now all they can come up with is that she is a “crony”. So who raised money for who’s group to defeat her? The man will not let any reasonable person call in and challenge him on the words that come out of his mouth. He wants a TV show so badly but he cant have anyone on to challenge him on his spew. MONEY LAUNDERING, MONEY LAUNDERING, MONEY LAUNDERING. 30 some odd counts
of withdraws right under 10K. No wonder he attacks Joe Wilson I’m sure he just sees crime as a Kay Bailey technicality. Don’t ignore him listen to him he is truly entertaining.
probably too late for some, but all good progressives should AVOID newsmax (#13) – you can get the pic of Clinton and the alito family here:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/lfiles/27609/
November 1st, 2005 at 6:32 pm-25 – “Your tone almost crosses the line of civility, in my opinion. 2) I made many allegations but you (incorrectly) address only one of them, which, in logic, is called a Straw Man argument…..Perhaps married women should notify their husbands before using contraceptives or before undergoing any type of surgery that may have complications affecting the husband’s interest in his wife’s reproductive organs.”
-Comment by POI
***** (Applause….applause….applause)
Your long-winded tome is an excellent example why elitist “progressives” are despised by so many typical people. You call “straw man” re: Alito’s spousal notification opinion……AND in familiar fashion….. shift the argument!!! Of course, husbands have no say in DemWorld – they’ve been trying to emasculate men for 30 years.
Do you Dems even bother with a husband or does a turkey baster fit the bill?
November 1st, 2005 at 6:39 pmYou know if Rush Limbaugh starts to take his message beyond the radio and into the blogs you should really start to worry.
November 1st, 2005 at 7:00 pmOh look… you’ve done it for him.
Lintball is a fat, lying pig, an obnoxious blowhard, an egomaniac on drugs. He and Daryn Kagan (CNN) should go off together and rid America of his poisonous opinions. He doesn’t challenge what was said, only that it was said at all.
November 1st, 2005 at 7:06 pmHe is part of the problem in America today.
Is that how you and your husband do it Hermaphrodite? I would have figured you’d have enough for both of you, but if a baster is what you need – then who is anyone to question your alternative lifestyle?
It’s so ironic that FatButt (Hermaphrodite qualifies redundantly) would get on his radio show and talk about the extreme behavior of anyone else – bahaha, that’s just so amusing? That retard is one of the biggest PROVEN liars to have ever pretended to be a journalist. He’s an immoral and hypocritical ahole. Anyone who listens to him is seriously deranged or delusional.
November 1st, 2005 at 7:15 pmMA is typical of the Rethugs — they don’t like people who think. They must rely on slogans, quick little phrases repeated over and over, over-simplification of very complex issues, because they are unable to reason. They react more than they think. They use reflexes more than introspection. That is a common difference between Rs and Ds. Dems see more than one side to issues because they are more concerned with the individual — Reps see only power, and go for it.
November 1st, 2005 at 7:15 pmI speak in generalities, knowing there are exceptions, but by and large this has been my experience.
“Of course, husbands have no say in DemWorld – they’ve been trying to emasculate men for 30 years.”
This is how we know that Hermaphrodite is really a man pretending to be a woman. No biological woman would be retarded enough to write this.
Here’s an excerpt from an interview Stephen J. Ducat where he describes how draq queens like Mighty Hermaphrodite and the other ‘anxious masculine’ male and semi-female characters alike exhibit a mass psychosis.
There’s a great explanation of all of this though, it’s called anxious masculinity – and it’s a mental disease that affects republicans and terrorists alike (you both suffer from the same affliction – surprise surprise).
In a culture based on male domination and in which most things feminine tend to be devalued, even if they are secretly envied, the most important thing about being a man is not being a woman. This powerful adult male imperative to be unlike females and to repudiate anything that smacks of maternal caretaking is played out just as powerfully in politics as it is in personal life. In fact, political contests among men are in many ways the ultimate battles for masculine supremacy. This makes disavowing the feminine in oneself and projecting it onto one’s opponent especially important. This femiphobia–this male fear of being feminine–operates unconsciously in many men as a very powerful determinant of their political behavior. It also constitutes a very significant motive for fundamentalist terrorism.
Femininity, for male fundamentalists, is seen as a contaminant, and there is an attempt to repudiate those aspects of one’s self that seem feminine. This is something that fundamentalists around the world share. As I argue in the last chapter of my book, there is a surprising affinity between Christian fundamentalists in this country and the extreme Islamic fundamentalists elsewhere, when it comes to this kind of devaluation, repudiation and fear of the feminine.
In fact, the kind of hyper-masculine strutting that we see on display by right wing males is a defense. It’s a defense against this anxious masculinity, against their fear of the feminine. In a culture in which it’s so important to deny the feminine in men, masculinity becomes a really brittle achievement. It’s quite Sisyphean–you know, you can never quite get there. You’re always having to prove it.
Part of the reason is that this type of masculinity is defined largely in terms of domination. The problem is that domination–either in a personal or a global context–can never be a permanent condition. It’s a relational state. It’s dependent on having somebody in a subordinate position. That means you could be manly today, but you’re not going to be manly tomorrow unless you’ve got somebody to push around and control, whether that is an abused wife or another country. So this kind of masculinity is really brittle.
Then peace is a threat to anxious masculinity?
It’s a threat because of its link to the feminine. In fact, I have a chapter on the 19th Century, when there was enormous debate about whether the U.S. should embark on the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars. In a number of editorial cartoons, peace itself was personified as female.
To cooperate, then, is to give up one’s masculine prerogative to assert oneself as a male leader?
Absolutely. In the world they live in, you’re either a top or a bottom. Mutuality, democracy, equality–that makes no sense to them.
The Republican homosexuals, especially if closeted, are not only treated as honorary heterosexuals; they become honorary homophobes, as the most recent scandal illustrated.
Matt Drudge is gay and yet engages in homophobia. Ken Mehlman, who is the head of the RNC, is reportedly gay and was a leader of the homophobic charge. There are numerous Congressman who have been outed and Senators who are known as gay, and yet who stick to the homophobic line. It’s a strange permutation of anxious masculinity, but maybe, as Jon Stewart said, if you’re on top, you’re not gay.
He has intuited something that is actually pervasive across cultures and across historical time–that in male-dominant cultures, homosexuality is only taboo when it’s perceived as feminizing. This has its foundation in ancient Greece, where it didn’t really matter with whom you had sex. What mattered was what position you occupied in the relationship of domination. If you were a penetrator, you were an unambiguous guy. If you were penetrated, you were virtually a woman. That dynamic operates in American prisons, and you can see it in some Middle Eastern cultures. It’s really a question of domination.
November 1st, 2005 at 7:20 pmWell #13
Devils Advocate here…
Lets say someones wife cheated on them and got pregnant, then got an abortion to hide the fact.
One Slippery Issue.
November 1st, 2005 at 7:30 pmMarie,
I agree. But if they ‘could’ think like a person, they never would be a republican. It’s a kind of self fulfilling prophecy.
November 1st, 2005 at 7:31 pmBut Judd is lying (again). The Democrats are not against racial discrimination. In fact, the Democratic party – the party that gave America Jim Crow laws – is very much in favor of official, government sanctioned race-based discrimination to this day.
November 1st, 2005 at 7:35 pmWwallace – Stop saying the opposite of the truth again. The democrats responsible for Jim Crow laws are now republicans. They’re part of the ‘redstate problem’ that you so clearly exhibit.
Just remember when republicans speak – they lie. It’s a compulsion – and it’s the law.
November 1st, 2005 at 7:48 pmwwallace,
You should look at the above information on republican and terrorism’s ANXIOUS MASCULINITY. It has you written all over it ‘honey’…
November 1st, 2005 at 7:58 pm#35, Maybe a thinking Republican is an oxymoron?
November 1st, 2005 at 8:02 pmAltho many who post here are just morons.
Marie,
Bahaha, very funny. It’s either an oxymoron or an oxycontin – I forget which :)
November 1st, 2005 at 8:04 pmToo bad you have to waste “ink” and time on Rush, a known drug abuser, unapologetic racist and all-around hypocrite.
November 1st, 2005 at 8:04 pm#19
“Alito sided with the STATE…”
This is what troubles me as a civil libretarian. Alito seems to be unusually deferential to the role of large institutions in our society.
The court is the unique branch of government stands independent from the pressures of interconnected systems of institutions that play such a large role in modern society.
The court is the anti-majoritarian bulwark against the abuses of the individual by the state while at the same time uniting the nation as one out of many by affording all people and all states the equal protection of the constitution.
These right-wingers think that on the court conservatives are, variously: those who are deferential to the state and those who seek to impose constitutional restrictions on it.
Seems schitzoid at first glance, but I think it works something like this:
1. When the measure favors civil liberties and regulation of instutional power, it is to be restricted as beyond the scope of government.
2. When the measure favors powerful institutions, it is to be upheld because the court’s role is a limited one, it should defer to the congressionally expressed will of the iron triangle.
November 1st, 2005 at 8:11 pm#33
Ah yes Ryan brings up a valid Point. In Ancient Greece they were two factions one the aigigi (Sp?) whom put their Male children in the care of a Warrior at the age of 7. They were brought up in a Homsexual environment.
Perhaps thats why the EMPIRE sees this as normal masculine behavior.
The other faction were Heterosexual.
Of course it caused problems when it came to Marrying, the women would shave their heads and stay in a Dark room so as to get the Male accustomed to sex with a Woman.
In the Elitist Society, Gay sex is not considered anything abnormal if your single, but not accepted once your married.
What the GOP (gay old party) is doing is playing on peoples moral values to gain trust and votes, empowerment.
Bush spoke of being against gay marriage, since hes been elected 2004, he has dropped the subject.
No Surprise here.
November 1st, 2005 at 8:24 pmI think the need for diversity on the court is an agruement that for now is being ignored. Alito, if confirmed, will be the 5th Roman Catholic male on a court with 9 members. Religion isn’t a test but diversity is a requirement. The arguement is then about Bush and his choices and not Alito’s qualification. Write a letter to the editor in your town.
November 1st, 2005 at 8:30 pm“Too bad you have to waste “ink†and time on Rush, a known drug abuser, unapologetic racist and all-around hypocrite.”
Explain “have to”.
Come to think of it is Thinkprogress endorsing the same sexist agenda of this Alito in only giving attention to the rantings of male fuckwits like Limbaugh when comments from female fuckwits like Coulter and Malkin are nowhere to be found ?
For shame Thinkprogress. All shock jocks were created equal. As were all people who think what they have to say is worth repeating.
November 1st, 2005 at 8:32 pmDave,
The catholics are all part of the whole Opus Dei (or Opus penDEIjo if you prefer) christo-fascist group. They’re the equivalent of the Taliban in the muslim world. They’re zealots, and radicals, and they intend on running things.
November 1st, 2005 at 8:35 pmLimbaugh began his career as an extremist bomb-thrower gadfly type who sought to shake up the limo-liberal New York City elite media establishment.
Now he flys around in a jet, drives around in Mercedes (or possibly BMW, It’s hard to tell from the references to his personal habits he slips into his show), lives in New York and Palm Beach, defends the establishment and claims to define what the mainstream is.
How sad.
November 1st, 2005 at 8:37 pmMighty Aphrodite writes,”Your long-winded tome is an excellent example why elitist “progressives” are despised by so many typical people. You call “straw man†re: Alito’s spousal notification opinion……AND in familiar fashion….. shift the argument!!! Of course, husbands have no say in DemWorld – they’ve been trying to emasculate men for 30 years.
November 1st, 2005 at 8:49 pmDo you Dems even bother with a husband or does a turkey baster fit the bill?”
Mighty Aphrodite, please take a deep breath! I didn’t shift the argument. The lengthy quote was from the supreme court decision, in opposition to Alito’s position. I put it in my post in direct response to the point focused on by Gino. I suggested that the straw man argument applied to Gino’s refusal to answer all of the points made in my original post. Now, I didn’t write the Supreme Court decision which I quoted at length. It was written by a woman, Sandra Day O’Connor, whom I believe to be a republican. As for your personal attacks on me, they, of course, don’t warrant a response. Please have a nice evening.
I remember when they tried to put Rush on TV against Real journalists. He Failed miserably when put up against anyone with brains.
He was kicked to the Airwaves.
Rush Debate?
Apparently very Little, he does a dialogue in front of an Audience, and hardly anyone gets past his screeners that wish to Debate with him. The ones that get thru are Rush Fans, Kinda Like Bush’s speeches where only loyal Bush people get thru.
Lets look at Rush Lies and the Corrections.
LIMBAUGH: “Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits.” (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.
LIMBAUGH: “Don’t let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America [in the '80s] resulted in a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth.” (Ought to Be, p. 70)
REALITY: CBO figures do nothing of the sort. Its numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980, the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20 to one.
LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: “And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period.” (Told You So, p. 84)
REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau’s “Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States”)
LIMBAUGH: “Oh, how they relished blaming Reagan administration policies, including the mythical reductions in HUD’s budget for public housing, for creating all of the homeless! Budget cuts? There were no budget cuts! The budget figures show that actual construction of public housing increased during the Reagan years.” (Ought to Be, p. 242-243)
REALITY: In 1980, 20,900 low-income public housing units were under construction; in 1988, 9,700, a decline of 54 percent ;Statistical Abstracts of the U.S).In terms of 1993 dollars, the HUD budget for the construction of new public housing was slashed from $6.3 billion in 1980 to $683 million in 1988. “We’re getting out of the housing business. Period,” a Reagan HUD official declared in 1985.
LIMBAUGH: “The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe.” (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)
REALITY: Huh? The average cash income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans is $5,226; the average cash income of four major European nations–Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy–is $19,708.
LIMBAUGH: “There’s no such thing as an implied contract.” (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)
REALITY: Every first year law student knows there is.
LIMBAUGH: “Ladies and gentlemen, we now know why there is this institutional opposition to low tax rates in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It’s because [low tax rates] are biblical in nature and in root. When you can trace the lowering of tax rates on grain from 90 percent to 20 percent giving seven fat years during the days of Pharaoh in Egypt, why then you are tracing the roots of lower taxes and rising prosperity to religion…. You can trace individual prosperity, economic growth back to the Bible, the Old Testament. Isn’t it amazing?” (Radio show, 6/28/93)
REALITY: Amazingly wrong. Genesis 41 is about the wisdom of instituting taxes, not cutting them. After Pharaoh had a dream that prophesied seven fat years to be followed by seven lean years, Joseph advised him to “appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years…and lay up corn under the hands of Pharaoh.” In other words, a 20 percent tax on the grain harvest would put aside food for use during the famine. Pharaoh took Joseph’s advice, and Egypt avoided hunger during the famine.
The age old method of Deceiving with the truth. A little truth followed by deception.
November 1st, 2005 at 8:50 pmWhat a bozo.
November 1st, 2005 at 9:23 pmWHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM A DRUG ADDICTED UNDERCOVER SEX ADDICT LIKE LIMBAUGH? THIS GUY OBVIOUSLY HAS ONE GIGANTIC HOLE IN HIS GUT THAT ALL THE CRAP HE CAN EAT CANNOT FILL.
November 1st, 2005 at 10:15 pm#28 PersonOfInterest – I actually appreciate your argument even though I only partially agree with the conclusion. What is really funny though is that you said of Gino’s post “Your tone almost crosses the line of civility, in my opinion.” Gino was actually a model of decorum and was rather mild for this place. Compare the post with earlier ones you make no comment upon like “freaking moron. He is such a fat fvcking slob”, “idiot”, “limpdick is pissed”, “let me snort some hillbilly heroin off your jiggly man-ass!”(stupid but funny by the way). I have no idea if you approve of their comments or not but selectivly chiding a mild poster who disagrees with you while ignoring the truly vile who seem to agree reflects poorly on you.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:02 amPOI – Thank you, Mr. Aphrodite and I had a great evening! I did have to take come up for air after reading your psuedo-intellectual tripe because I was laughing SO hard. Gino was discussing Alito’s position and your response was to cite a SC refutation – BFD -that wasn’t HIS point. With true sensitivity,you expect him to address each of your tedious points – who could stay awake through all THAT. Many Dems and Fems have dismissed the importance of husbands and families for too long – and sadly, we are paying the price. What were the stoners of old saying, “Make Love – Not War”? Sweet dreams!
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:01 am“With true sensitivity,you expect him to address each of your tedious points – who could stay awake through all THAT.”
Are you referring to POI’s tedious points, or Gino’s refutation thereof?
In either case, you admit that you are intellectually vacuous and not interested in a serious discussion of what is mainstream and what is extremist.
In reference to #19, Gino’s assertion (and Alito’s, I suppose) that wives must notify their husbands before getting an abortion…
What if you are not married? Is there a different legal standard for married and unmarried women?
Gino seems to believe that the husband has a right to be notified because the child is his. BaHaHaHaHa… science has shown that a WHOLE LOT of kids are not the husbands’. BIG surprise! I have a friend who just found out that one of his two kids are not his.
How would the state enfoce this requirement, if Gino’s logic is to hold true? Either husbands whose sperm was potentially not involved would have a say in the matter or there would have to be some sort of test. Genetic tests before abortions?
I thought these repukes were against intrusive government?
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:36 am“MA is typical of the Rethugs — they don’t like people who think. They must rely on slogans, quick little phrases repeated over and over, over-simplification of very complex issues, because they are unable to reason.” Comment by Marie
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:49 am***** Marie, do you mean people who rely on their thug union leadership for direction and guiddance or that boring mantra, “for… the…. children…………the ones we don’t abort”
Okay Folks.
We are closing in on the Scoundrels Fast.
Spread the WORD!! Share this Information!!
Edomites (non religious False Jews) on the RUN!!! (told ya) Welp I aint gotta Type it Now. Here tis. MY friends at Counterpunch Have done us well. Please Support Them!!
Time waits for no name.
Lets get up to Neo-Con Straussian Thunk and how it construed a ‘Noble Lie’ and what a Noble Lie is really contrued with or by.
Hang on. Tight.
Its a DooZy.
Counterpunch.org
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh11022005.html
In Short:
The Philosophy of Mendacity
By JOHN WALSH
All governments lie as I. F. Stone famously observed, but some governments lie more than others. And the neocon Bush regime serves up whoppers as standard fare every day. Why this propensity to lie? There are many reasons, but it is not widely appreciated that the neocons believe in lying on principle. It is the “noble†thing for the elite to do, for the “vulgar†masses, the “herd†will become ungovernable without such lies. This is the idea of the “noble lie†practiced with such success and boldness by Scooter Libby and his co-conspirators and concocted by the political “philosopher†Leo Strauss whose teachings lie at the core of the neoconservative outlook and agenda, so much so that they are sometimes called “Leocons.â€
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:51 amHi Aphrodite. Please look at comment 19 where Gino establishes what he thinks is the point at issue. “Sam also thinks that a woman has to notify her husband in order to get an abortion.†Gino disagrees with this comment which he quotes from my post. Now, please reference comment 25 the lengthy quote from the supreme court decision which supports the striking down of the Penn Statue in question. Explicit in the writing is that spousal notification, being a necessary condition under the statute to get an abortion is wrong. Re: Statute 3209, the meaning of which is the point at issue, the court said, The court stated, “It requires spousal notification in connection with obtaining an abortion.” This is the language I used when I stated when I said,”…a woman has to notify her husband in order to get an abortion.” I hope this helps you to understand what our discussion is actually about. Glad you had a nice evening. I did too. Being a West Coast Elitist Progressive I drove my Volvo to the local health food resturant and dined on tofu, tree bark, and alfalfa sprouts. For desert I had a cheese plate of brie, gouda, and sharp chedder. Of course this was all accompanied by a bottle of 2001 Charles Krug Chard. Since my elitist wife, who is a witch, met with her sisters in a coven in Brentwood (where they cast spells together to emasculate men) I had to dine alone. However, elitist that I am, I managed to read 50 pages of Marx’s Das Capital while, in between bites, I hummed the Internationale.
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:51 pmHello TheRef. Your point is well taken except that I’m only currently involved in a conversation with Gino and the Mighty Aphrodite. I don’t like name calling, particularly by progressives. My experience is that conservative Bush supporters can, in time, learn to see that Bush and many Republicans are not conservative, but radical. After all,
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:07 pmthey’ve controlled all three branches of government for five years, have insituted a policy of torture, got us into a hopeless war, made the U.S. despised throughout the world, turned budget surpluses into record deficits, destroyed environmnetal laws, gutted FEMA, screwed up disaster relief, oversaw huge increases in poverty, etc. This is a radical agenda. Initially, conservatives don’t want to see this and will engage in name-calling and use bullying tactics. But some do see the light eventually. I think that name-calling just plays into their hands because it allows them to dismiss, out of hand, what you are saying. “True conservatives” and “true progressives” have more areas of agreement than disagreement. We all believe in limited, constitutional government and the rule of law, for example.
PoI – Your “clarification”, while “thorough” does not discuss Gino’s opinion in which he favours husbands being notified re: pending abortion. So disagree with him already! Real men wouldn’t be caught dead in a Volvo or in a “health food” restaurant. (Those old oxidized Volvos or the new “racier” versions seem to be littered with old Kerry/Edwards stickers and my favourite license plate frame – “KPBS Millenium Member”.) Mr. Aphrodite did enjoy his RARE (the thing was still mooing) Prime Rib and plain lettuce salad. Congrats to your witch – her emasculating spells are working!!!
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:09 pm#59 You really think only Republicans like rare steaks? You really ARE deluded.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:54 pmHi Aphro. 1) Justice O’connor’s opinion, which I have quoted at length, presents the reasons why I don’t favor notification of husbands – she states it much better than I can. 2) When you were in school, did you take Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” seriously, and do you know what prompted me to ask this question? (Hint: do you really think I drive a Volvo, eat tree bark and humm the Internationale at dinner?) 3) Isn’t it supremely ironic that you call your husband MR. APHRODITE? Why do you give him a woman’s name? I would have thought his name might be something like “Spike” or “Rocky, not Aphrodite or Cynthia. Talk about emasculation!
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:00 pm“This is a bit confusing. Limbaugh doesn’t question any of our claims, he just says we are “out of the mainstream.†It’s out of the mainstream to be against racial discrimination? It’s out of the mainstream to support the Family and Medical Leave Act?”
Not only is CAP and the vast majority of left-wing lunatics who post here out of the mainstream, you’re so far out that you’re off the chart. Sayin that Alito would oppose abortion, for example, while knowing full well the man has come down on the side of choice in 3 of 4 cases about abortion, and in the 4th case, his opinion was not that abortions should be outlawed – he opined that a law requiring spousal notification was not unconstitutional. Your intellectually dishonest, disingenuous lies, half truths and exaggerations continue with your self-serving attempt to characterize yourselves as being opposed to racial discrimination, yet you enthusistically support the blatant, explicit racial discriminiation that occurs under affirmative action.
You folks are nuts – and it doesn’t take a dittohead to see it.
November 2nd, 2005 at 7:04 pmI am sorry I am such an idiot.
My apologies to all for being a hate spewing reich-winger.
Please accept my apologies, and I will be good from now on!
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:44 pmPOI – “Isn’t it supremely ironic that you call your husband MR. APHRODITE?” It’s his LAST name – who knew?? But thankfully, his mom and dad knew he’d have his share of fights with such a “girly” last name, they named him a non-wimpy first name, VICTOR – and bless his heart, he is!!! No, I loved Swift’s perfect satire – but here in BLUE California we have sensitive Volvo types – as you well know. As for humming the Internationale – you’re right, I know you don’t hum – I actually think you sing it at the TOP of YOUR LUNGS!!! HA!
November 3rd, 2005 at 3:17 pmMighty- That’s an understatement! Remember to vote today so Arnold will shut up! and throw out the public employee unions voting themselves raises so they can give money to politicians who give them back the money and….AAAAAHHHHHHHHH…..)(Marco’s head explodes…..)
November 8th, 2005 at 12:43 am