Democrat Congressional Comittee attacks Rush Limbaugh

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

yeah, it was a radio show where he spoke off the top of his head. even though, the government seems to have gotten their panties in a bunch off a soundbite.

 

[rocketeer]

If they succeed, how can they not be good?
If he had said that he doesn't want Obama's plans to be implemented, that's one thing. Then he'd have a defense. But to wish that the government implements policies that fail, that is actually wishing harm upon the country for political gain. Which seems to me to be exactly what he is saying. "I want to win". Not "I want the country to prosper".

barfo

or he thinks that the policies being implemented and "succeeding" won't make the country prosper.

i mean, i really don't give a shit about rush limbaugh, i just don't really have a problem with most of what he says here either. i do think it's funny that he uses democrats not giving bush a chance as justification for not giving obama a chance as if it were relevant.

 

[barfo]

yeah, it was a radio show where he spoke off the top of his head. even though, the government seems to have gotten their panties in a bunch off a soundbite.

It isn't the government, it is the DCCC. There is a difference.

barfo

 

[barfo]

or he thinks that the policies being implemented and "succeeding" won't make the country prosper.

Well, I guess it depends on what the definition of success is.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

If they succeed, how can they not be good?
If he had said that he doesn't want Obama's plans to be implemented, that's one thing. Then he'd have a defense. But to wish that the government implements policies that fail, that is actually wishing harm upon the country for political gain. Which seems to me to be exactly what he is saying. "I want to win". Not "I want the country to prosper".

barfo

Pol Pot's plans succeeded. They weren't good.

 

[Denny Crane]

The big gotcha is the Dems have been trying forever to pass the so-called fairness doctrine, which is a violation of the 1st amendment (like they care) and interference in private industry beyond reason.

I know one post here has been made about it.

 

[barfo]

Pol Pot's plans succeeded. They weren't good.

Like I said, depends on your definition of success.

barfo

 

[barfo]

The big gotcha is the Dems have been trying forever to pass the so-called fairness doctrine, which is a violation of the 1st amendment (like they care) and interference in private industry beyond reason.

I know one post here has been made about it.

How is that a big gotcha?

barfo

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

 

[barfo]

It ends? Really, I thought it was going to go on forever here.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

How is that a big gotcha?

barfo

They want to force stations carrying Limbaugh to carry 3 hours (or whatever it is) of some awful money losing show (i.e. air america). The effect is to stifle free speech (limbaugh).

Turn the dial if you don't like him, it's what I do.

I don't think I've heard his show in 15 years.

 

[barfo]

They want to force stations carrying Limbaugh to carry 3 hours (or whatever it is) of some awful money losing show (i.e. air america). The effect is to stifle free speech (limbaugh).

Turn the dial if you don't like him, it's what I do.

I don't think I've heard his show in 15 years.

Me neither. I don't think we are discussing whether Limbaugh should be on the air or not. No one has suggested he doesn't have a right to say whatever he wants to say.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Me neither. I don't think we are discussing whether Limbaugh should be on the air or not. No one has suggested he doesn't have a right to say whatever he wants to say.

barfo

The fairness doctrine is the democrats' plan to silence guys like Rush Limbaugh.

Read the debate over it, it's simple to find with google.

 

[maxiep]

Then why vote Republican?

No party has grown government more than the Bushies the past 8 years. Clinton and Gore REDUCED the size of government, and if you don't believe me, google it.

Facts are a bitch sometimes.

As for Rush: 1) Let's remember he's an entertainer and he wants ratings, and 2) despite that, what he said was unAmerican. Patriot my ass.

Wow, it's like you haven't read the thread at all. Go back. Re-read. Re-think. I'm not a Republican, I'm not a conservative.

You're welcome.

 

[barfo]

The fairness doctrine is the democrats' plan to silence guys like Rush Limbaugh.

Read the debate over it, it's simple to find with google.

You are either changing the subject or engaging in conspiracy theories. The fairness doctrine doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I like how no one is a Republican anymore.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

You are either changing the subject or engaging in conspiracy theories. The fairness doctrine doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand.

barfo

That's the way these things go. We start talking about one thing and end up talking about another. Do I need to send you back to you embarrassing yourself regarding nuclear technology when the issue at hand was global warming?

 

[barfo]

That's the way these things go. We start talking about one thing and end up talking about another. Do I need to send you back to you embarrassing yourself regarding nuclear technology when the issue at hand was global warming?

I didn't change the subject to nuclear technology in that thread, and you'll notice that Brian recanted his statements. The only one who should be embarrassed by that thread is you.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

I like how no one is a Republican anymore.

barfo

I was never a Republican. I was a proud DLC Democrat until the party went to whackjobs on the left and I started studying economics seriously.

 

[Denny Crane]

You are either changing the subject or engaging in conspiracy theories. The fairness doctrine doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand.

barfo

Yeah it has everything to do with Democrats doing things like this to try to stifle guys like Limbaugh.

 

[maxiep]

I didn't change the subject to nuclear technology in that thread, and you'll notice that Brian recanted his statements. The only one who should be embarrassed by that thread is you.

barfo

Nice fiction. He nicely cut you to pieces. You're apparently incapable of embarrassment.

 

[barfo]

I was never a Republican. I was a proud DLC Democrat until the party went to whackjobs on the left and I started studying economics seriously.

I'll get a magnifying glass and see if I can detect a difference between you and a republican.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Nice fiction. He nicely cut you to pieces. You're apparently incapable of embarrassment.

Sorry, you are completely clueless, as you admitted yourself.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

I'll get a magnifying glass and see if I can detect a difference between you and a republican.

barfo

Well, I support gay marriage. I even support polygamy among consenting adults. I'm pro-choice. And I could go on and on and on and on.

Don't blame me you can't recognize the difference between a Republican and someone who is laissez-faire. The difference is getting wider all the time.

 

[maxiep]

Sorry, you are completely clueless, as you admitted yourself.

barfo

Sorry, you're not the arbitor. You're just a blowhard who won't bring up his qualifications to discuss anything. As for which one of us is completely clueless, I'll allow your posts to speak for themselves.

 

[Denny Crane]

Seems I went to a flamefest and a political debate broke out.

 

[barfo]

Sorry, you're not the arbitor. You're just a blowhard who won't bring up his qualifications to discuss anything.

Qualifications? This is the internet, buddy. I've got a computer, that's my qualification.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Qualifications? This is the internet, buddy. I've got a computer, that's my qualification.

barfo

Congratulations on your impressive achievement.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I didn't change the subject to nuclear technology in that thread, and you'll notice that Brian recanted his statements. The only one who should be embarrassed by that thread is you.

barfo

Singular. I recanted one. The rest of the War and Peace post was a detailed technical explanation detailing why I (mistakenly, it seems) generalized excessively. The original statement of "Uranium comes from the ground. We use it in nuclear reactors until it can no longer reach criticality at a certain set of circumstances. Then we'd like to put it back into the ground in a place that's far away from population. What, exactly, is wasteful/toxic/dangerous about that?" wasn't incorrect, and I didn't recant it, though no one really answered why it's wasteful/toxic/dangerous. The followup statement of "but it's not like when Uranium oxide is used up, it becomes Plutonium or something "really bad". The cores are Uranium oxide coming from the ground, and uranium oxide going back in" was what I recanted. Instead it the fuel is 97% Uranium dioxide and 3% fission products, much of which could be reprocessed...and then explained why the original point was still valid. Keeping in line with your quote from post #55:

So, basically you are saying that you know more about climate science than the climate scientists.
I'm skeptical. Feel free to prove it to me, scientifically.
barfo

(substitute "nuclear engineering" and "nuclear engineers" for "climate science" and "climate scientists") and I attempted to prove it, scientifically. I thought I did a decent job.

I hijacked that thread with the original question, deeming it germane since I'd seen Denny bring it up in Post 112. And now it seems I've hijacked another one...but in my defense, it was b/c I thought my good name was being tarnished as a bald-faced recanter of truths.

IMHO, no one should really be embarrassed by that thread, though I would submit it would be fair to, in the future when talking about this, write about how I was challenged on my opinion and responded with enough facts to give dissenters pause, rather than making it sound like I blew hot air all over the interwebz, got caught in it and pulled a quick mea culpa recant to limit the repercussions of my stupidity.

 

[barfo]

Singular. I recanted one. The rest of the War and Peace post was a detailed technical explanation detailing why I (mistakenly, it seems) generalized excessively. The original statement of "Uranium comes from the ground. We use it in nuclear reactors until it can no longer reach criticality at a certain set of circumstances. Then we'd like to put it back into the ground in a place that's far away from population. What, exactly, is wasteful/toxic/dangerous about that?" wasn't incorrect, and I didn't recant it, though no one really answered why it's wasteful/toxic/dangerous. The followup statement of "but it's not like when Uranium oxide is used up, it becomes Plutonium or something "really bad". The cores are Uranium oxide coming from the ground, and uranium oxide going back in" was what I recanted. Instead it the fuel is 97% Uranium dioxide and 3% fission products, much of which could be reprocessed...and then explained why the original point was still valid. Keeping in line with your quote from post #55:
(substitute "nuclear engineering" and "nuclear engineers" for "climate science" and "climate scientists") and I attempted to prove it, scientifically. I thought I did a decent job.

I thought you did too.

I hijacked that thread with the original question, deeming it germane since I'd seen Denny bring it up in Post 112. And now it seems I've hijacked another one...but in my defense, it was b/c I thought my good name was being tarnished as a bald-faced recanter of truths.

Sorry if I seemed to be tarnishing your name. I think you said something that was over-generalized to the point of not being accurate, I pointed that out, and you corrected it. I don't think there is any big problem with any of that. Maxiep disagrees, obviously.

IMHO, no one should really be embarrassed by that thread, though I would submit it would be fair to, in the future when talking about this, write about how I was challenged on my opinion and responded with enough facts to give dissenters pause, rather than making it sound like I blew hot air all over the interwebz, got caught in it and pulled a quick mea culpa recant to limit the repercussions of my stupidity.

Sorry if it sounded that way to you. I guess I assumed that anyone interested in the little pissing match between maxiep and I would have read the thread in question and would know what I was referring to. Maybe that wasn't such a good assumption.

barfo