Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

«‹›3446 »

beatlegs: Mar 11, 2001

Hazo posted:

So Obama's approval is now on par with GWB's. This is gonna be messy.

The reasons behind Bush's disapproval were pretty much universal; lied us into an unnecessary war, complete lack of moral leadership, etc. With Obama it's more compartmentalized. The right hates him because black muslim dictator, independents perceive him as ineffective, liberals see him as too friendly with big banks & wall street. Bush entered office during a time of financial stability, immediately squandered the surplus, spent us into oblivion & triggered the recession. Obama's spent his entire two terms trying to clean up Bush's mess with a congress that refuses to help him in any way. I know media idiots try and equate the approval numbers with a schadenfreude-ish gleam in their eye but the nature of the disapprovals are completely dissimiliar.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 06:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 15:26

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Yeah I mean it's not like Biden's approval is at like 9% or whatever the hell Cheney's was in 2006.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 06:09

skaboomizzy: Nov 12, 2003; There is nothing I want to be. There is nothing I want to do.
I don't even have an image of what I want to be. I have nothing. All that exists is zero.

Dr.Zeppelin posted:

Also, I'm pretty sure approval rating and favorability rating are two distinct poll questions and the two are being conflated here.

Yep, this is spot on.

For Obama, "job approval" has tended to be lower than "favorability"; there's a chunk of the population that likes Obama on a personal level but don't think he's doing a good job as President.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 06:11

Spacedad: Sep 11, 2001; We go play orbital catch around the curvature of the earth, son.

Hell, you can even see what that difference means by looking no further than me.

Do I like Obama? Yep. Do I approve of the job he's presently doing? No.

For me though it's stuff like the record deportations, the persecution of whistleblowers, and the placating of crooks on Wall Street that has me nonplussed though.

Spacedad fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Jun 13, 2014

# ? Jun 13, 2014 06:19

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

There's also the matter that a lot of the unhappiness expressed towards Obama and the job he's done is coming from liberals who wish he'd be more liberal. His numbers might be down, but that absolutely does not mean that Republicans have a huge field of disaffected voters to pick off, or that Hillary won't easily shoo them back into her camp once the choice becomes either her or Ted Cruz. The big disapproval number for the ACA, for instance, were read by right-wingers as proof that America was about to launch a major backlash against over-reaching socialism, when in fact half the people unhappy with Obamacare were upset because it wasn't fully socialized.

Obama's limp numbers mean trouble for Team D in 2014 (as disaffected Democratic base voters drive turnout down even further), but mean absolutely nothing for 2016, unless Obama gets hit with a huge scandal or disaster or economic downturn. It'll be fun to watch Republicans work to convince themselves that they do, though.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 06:32

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

quote:

"And, at 51%, his unfavorable his higher than his favorables for the first time as well."

loving learn syntax and diction and how to loving spell a word before you post "news."
Please.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 07:01

Berke Negri: Feb 15, 2012; Les Ricains tuent et moi je mue
Mao Mao
Les fous sont rois et moi je bois
Mao Mao
Les bombes tonnent et moi je sonne
Mao Mao
Les bebes fuient et moi je fuis
Mao Mao

Spacedad posted:

Hell, you can even see what that difference means by looking no further than me.

Do I like Obama? Yep. Do I approve of the job he's presently doing? No.

For me though it's stuff like the record deportations, the persecution of whistleblowers, and the placating of crooks on Wall Street that has me nonplussed though.

To be fair to Obama, deportations being up is due to turn arounds as people cross the border, not actually rounding up immigrants already here and deporting them en masse. This is the same administration that ran SB1070 through the courts and executive ordered the DREAM act, sort of. I think the current unofficial policy is to freeze all non-criminal deportations in country until reform is passed or he's out of office. The increased border deportations is merely a fact there's a lot more border patrol than before and that's largely stuff pushed under Bush (who was still pro-immigration himself).

# ? Jun 13, 2014 07:10

Spacedad: Sep 11, 2001; We go play orbital catch around the curvature of the earth, son.

Please rise for the national anthem of the sovereign isle of Pudgy Whitelandia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93-4tI_uk44

*Sounds of eating punctuated by thunderous farts.*

Also, here's a random youtube comment from some homophobe troll or whatever. I'm pulling it (from this video) because the bolded part makes me giggle.

quote:

HOMOSEXUALITY IS DETRIMENTAL TO SOCIETY AND ONLY LEADS TO THE ULTIMATE DEMISE OF NATIONS. AMERICA AS A CHRISTIAN NATION SHOULD PUT LAWS THAT WILL ACT AS A DETERRENT AGAINST RAMPANT HOMOSEXUALITY INCLUDING THE DEATH PENALTY. THE SUPER GAY SUPER LOBBYISTS HAVE INFILTRATED GOVERNMENT TO THE POINT OF TYRANNY. THE VIRUS OF HOMOSEXUALITY GETS MORE POWERFUL EVERYDAY. MORE AND MORE KIDS ARE BEING INDOCTRINATED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS OKAY. GAY LAWS ARE BEING PASSED EVERYDAY THAT DISCRIMINATE CHRISTIANS BY CALLING THEM RETARDED BIGOTS. THE END OF AMERICA IS NEAR. LEGALIZING HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE, SODOMY, AND WEED WILL DESTROY AMERICA.

I replied "I AM SUPER GAY SUPER LOBBYIST AND WE WILL HAVE ALL THE GAY GAYNESS SEX AND TOTALLY HOMO IT UP RIGHT IN YOUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH OUR MAGIC GAY SPARKLE POWERS WOOP WOOP"

SUPER GAY SUPER LOBBYIST sounds like a pretty bitchin' superhero.

Spacedad fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Jun 13, 2014

# ? Jun 13, 2014 08:02

mr. mephistopheles: Dec 2, 2009

Dr. Faustus posted:

loving learn syntax and diction and how to loving spell a word before you post "news."
Please.

The commonness of typos and straight up grammatical errors in national news stories is mind-boggling and sad. I can't decide if it's a symptom of the death of journalism or a cause, though.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 08:16

turnip kid: May 24, 2010

I feel like the Bowe Bergdahl uproar already died down.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 13:28

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

lil mortimer posted:

I feel like the Bowe Bergdahl uproar already died down.

You can thank Cantor for that.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 13:40

UFOTacoMan: Sep 22, 2005; Thanks easter bunny!
bok bok!

computer parts posted:

You can thank Cantor for that.

And all the "Obama lost the Iraq war that we won" topic that made up the majority of talk on Hannity, Levin and Local "Independent" Radio Douche that I checked out yesterday.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 14:45

Zwabu: Aug 7, 2006

Spark That Bled posted:

Not to mention that, by Perry's reasoning, there's nothing stopping heterosexuals from engaging in homosexual acts but their "self control".

Well, the whole question not being asked of Perry here (and I suppose it was some kind of speech/rally with no questions) is "why should gays refrain from homosexual acts" in the first place? The answer, of course, buried in all the "destructive lifestyle" language is "IT'S A SIN AND THEY'LL BURN IN HELL", but it would be nice for these idiots to be forced to say it out loud.

Perry is obviously back campaigning for the GOP primary, he really hasn't moved out of the knuckle dragging mode he was stuck in during the 2012 primaries, he just added tweed and smart-guy glasses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

# ? Jun 13, 2014 16:02

Zuhzuhzombie!!: Apr 17, 2008; FACTS ARE A CONSPIRACY BY THE CAPITALIST OPRESSOR

lil mortimer posted:

I feel like the Bowe Bergdahl uproar already died down.

Found out that he was A> Mentally Incompetent to even be enlisted, and B> A Randian. Those are FOX's two major demographics so they needed to stop poo poo talking him.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 16:18

kik2dagroin: Mar 23, 2007; Use the anger. Use it.

This poo poo is pretty good

quote:

RUSH: The New York Times has a story today that the prime minister is refusing to send any military aid to help the Iraqis. They're being overrun there by Al-Qaeda terrorists, the Al-Qaeda branch in Iraq. And Nouri al-Maliki -- do you know that he's still alive and still running things over there? Nouri al-Maliki has been begging us to send in some air support. You know, just fly some of our fighter jets over and drop some bombs on the Iraqi Al-Qaeda insurgents. But our president is refusing even that.

Nouri al-Maliki is not asking for any troops. He's not asking for any reentry boots on the ground. He just wants two or three fighter jets. He'd accept even a couple of Warthogs to fly. He's not even asking for F-15s.

Obama's refusing to do that. He says that he is not going to let the US get involved again in Iraq. Why do you think that is? Any flash-in-the-pan guesses? (interruption) The wars are over. All of the wars are over. There is no Al-Qaeda. We defeated terrorists once we killed bin Laden. But that's not the answer. That's not the reason why he's not. Let me go back to me on this program two and a half years ago, almost three years ago, October 24th, 2011.

RUSH ARCHIVE: Now all of a sudden we're gonna get out of Iraq at the end of the year. This is a campaign move, pure and simple, that runs the risk of saddling the Democrat Party with the ultimate loss of Iraq 'cause we're not gonna have any troops there. And I guarantee you, on a scale, seesaw, whatever they have balanced it out and Obama says, "If I have any chance of being reelected, I gotta get the base back in love with me," and that means pulling out of Iraq regardless what else what happens.

Now, don't frown at me, Snerdley. I know you think it's over the top to say, but it's not at all. Obama's base, the Michael Moore crowd would love it if we got shellacked. They would love it if we end up, quote, unquote, losing in Iraq. It would be a repudiation of Bush, they could say, "See, we never shoulda gone there in the first place, it didn't make any difference." drat straight. Even after 4,500 American soldiers dead, drat straight.

We're not dealing with a rational bunch of people on the left. We're dealing with people who have an abject hatred for this country; who believe this country needs to be taken down a peg or two or three; who believe we shouldn't-a gone to Iraq in the first place and we need to pay a price for going in there. And what would that be? World-wide humiliation. And Obama would benefit from it, from the base.

RUSH: So, essentially, ladies and gentlemen, two and a half years ago I predicted this. I mean, I didn't predict the exact event. I didn't know that the Iraqis -- if I thought about it we could have all probably figured out that once we pulled out of there, this was going to happen. We just didn't know exactly when. And that once we pulled out of there we could probably predict that the Iraqis would ask us to do something to help them. But what was easily predictable was that Obama would say "no."

And the New York Times story today is: "Iraq Said to Seek US Strikes on Militants -- As the threat from Sunni militants in western Iraq escalated last month, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki --" how am I pronouncing all these names? "-- Nouri al-Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas, according to Iraqi and American officials. But Iraq's appeals for a military response have so far been rebuffed by the White House, which has been reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that President Obama has insisted was over when the United States withdrew the last of its forces from Iraq in 2011."

Now, I would probably -- no, not probably. I would understand if a whole significant swath of the United States didn't want to get anymore involved in Iraq. A lot of people think we shouldn't have gone in the first place. The mission didn't have a chance. We're never gonna democratize the place unless we stayed forever, and we don't want to relive this so don't go back. Probably a lot of Americans would fall into that camp. But that's not why the White House is rejecting these overtures. I think the reason is obvious, and I said it back in 2011.

I think this administration wants both Iraq and Afghanistan to fail as stable democracies. And if you doubt that, would you give me -- I'm open to changing my mind about this -- just give me any evidence to the contrary. And don't cite Afghanistan, because everything we're doing in Afghanistan is designed to prop up the Taliban. We just gave them five of their apparently biggest and most important freedom fighters, just released them. We're restocking the Taliban. Obama thinks they're a legitimate entity, that they have a right to run that country and we should negotiate with them. They're not an enemy that needs to be defeated.

So, see, you have to understand liberals, folks, and it takes courage to understand liberals. Well, maybe not to understand, but it takes courage to admit that you understand liberals. And if you understand liberals, you understand that everything is viewed through the prism of politics. So Nouri al-Maliki asking for air support to beat back Al-Qaeda insurgents is immediately calculated as a political move by Obama and everybody on the left. It's not about human rights. It's not about saving the women and children. It's not about saving a war torn country. And, sadly, it's not about standing up for US policy.

Whether George Bush was your enemy or not politically, he was a former president and it was the policy of this country to save Iraq and potentially establish a democratic beachhead there. It was a long shot, but that was the policy of the country. And in no way does Obama share that at all. So it's not about maintaining American consistency. It's not about showing allies we could be counted on. It's not about helping people in need. It's about advancing the Democrat agenda. And this is where it takes courage to admit this, and particularly say so publicly on a microphone broadcasting to tens of millions of people, like I'm doing right now.

The simple fact of the matter is, the ultimate objective, Obama and the Democrats and the whole anti-war crowd -- Code Pink, MoveOn.org, you name it -- is to prove for the rest of time that everything Bush did was a mistake and was for nothing. It's to continue the public perception of Bush was rotten and horrible, incompetent, dangerous, inconsiderate, unfeeling, uncaring. Nouri al-Maliki asking for American air support in Iraq gives Obama another political opportunity to blame Bush. And that is an opportunity they just can't pass up. It's too juicy.

The opportunity here to secure defeat in Iraq, have it overrun by Al-Qaeda, buck up Taliban in Afghanistan, essentially get out of there and hand that country over to them. What have you done? You have proven in your mind, for the rest of time, that George W. Bush's wars were all for nothing. You have proven that George Bush was a dirty, rotten president. You have proven that Bush had no business going anywhere. You have proven that we lost lives unnecessarily. You have advanced your own political agenda, and at the same time you are hopefully, in their view, exciting your base. As I say, the Michael Moore crowd, which just loves to see the American military fail. Because they consider the American military an agent of evil in the world.

The GOP has always been considered the party best at foreign policy, something the Democrats don't like. This is an opportunity to take a hit at that. In other words, it's a political opportunity. Iraq falling, Afghanistan falling, that is a political gold mine. That is a grand-slam home run. If you want to doubt me, go right ahead, but just ask yourself how often does Barack Obama blame George W. Bush for everything that is, has been, or will go wrong in this country? He does it still to this day. The effort to say or to illustrate: "We can't trust these Republicans with foreign policy. They go into these parts of the world and they do it for personal reasons and they fail and they get people killed, and it's horrible."

Now, also remember all the other countries that sent soldiers to fight and die in Iraq and Afghanistan who went along with us, because of, at the time, our power, if you will, and our moral authority. That is another thing here that can be chopped down. Our moral authority. The US can't be trusted. Abandons allies, goes places where it's hopeless. Republican presidents incompetent, get us involved in ill-conceived and poorly executed foreign wars. You fill in the blanks. This is a golden opportunity and I predicted it back 2011. So when I saw the New York Times story, "Iraq Said to Seek US Strikes on Militants" and the Regime, "Well, we'd love to, but really not," no surprise here.
...
RUSH: Carolyn in Willow Park, Texas, glad that you called. Great to have you on the program. Hi.

CALLER: Oh, it's such a pleasure to speak with you Rush.

RUSH: Thank you! Thanks so much.

CALLER: I'm such a fan.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: What I was calling about was last night I was watching Fox News and I got really depressed seeing the Iraq situation there. My daughter-in-law's only brother was killed in Iraq in 2008, and it was just devastating for her family.

RUSH: I'm sure.

CALLER: And so I feel like, you know, maybe Cory's life was in vain because of what we're seeing. Obama just threw it away. Everything that Bush had done -- and Bush had done some good things. He wasn't perfect, but he did some good things, and that coupled with the border situation with all those children, it was just a lot to take last night.

RUSH: I can imagine how you feel about this, and... Well, let me ask. When you hear that the Iraqis had made a request for us to provide some air support to repel some of the Al-Qaeda attempts to overrun cities and we turned 'em down, what do you think? What's your reaction to it?

CALLER: Well, I was thinking of that last night. If we would just send in some jets and take care of 'em like we did in Baghdad, it didn't take very long. Don't put anymore boots on the ground, but take them out.

RUSH: I tell you, I can't --

CALLER: We can't just allow them to take over that country again and undo everything that was done through 4500 young men and women losing their lives.

RUSH: Well, look, grab sound bites 25 and 26. We've got Obama on this. Carolyn, I don't know what is going to happen. I stand by what I said in the first hour, that this administration looks at everything politically. They make a political calculation on every event. Every school shooting, every hurricane -- I don't care what it is -- everything is gonna be related to the advancement of their agenda or damaging what they think the Republican agenda is.

I'm here to tell you, in an election year, I really... Can any of you see Obama committing even one jet to Iraq? Do you realize what his base would say? The Code Pinks, the Michael Moores? They're already mad at the guy 'cause they don't think he's moved far enough left fast enough. They're already mad at him 'cause he hasn't closed Gitmo, and they're already mad at him 'cause he expanded Afghanistan for a while.

They're already mad at him 'cause Obamacare doesn't work, and that was their utopian panacea. If he sends one jet over there? Pshew! But I stand by what I said in the first hour. As far as Obama and the Democrats are concerned, hanging... In fact, I can prove this to you. Let me make the assertion again and then prove it.

The assertion that I'm making is that if Obama and the Democrats can further cement the notion that Iraq was a total mistake made by Bush and the Republicans, they will do it. If they can discredit Cheney and everybody involved -- Rumsfeld, Bush -- by letting Iraq fall, that's a big political home run for them. You have to be honest with yourselves about them, though.

That's why I said in the first hour, it takes courage to admit the truth about liberalism and liberals, and they are... Let me put it this way. They're not disappointed at military failure. They're not disappointed at all. But if this strikes you as a bit harsh, may I remind you of their behavior while we were in Iraq, for the last three years? MoveOn.org, Code Pink, you name it.

Obama, John Kerry, John Murtha. Every day they we're doing everything they could to discredit the war effort in Iraq. All it took was one allegation that Marines, say, in Haditha were raping and terrorizing women and children, and out went Jack Murtha and John Kerry to believe it and condemn these Marines before there had been any investigation. They couldn't wait!
...
These are the same people that were doing everything they could to saddle George W. Bush with a loss in Iraq. Be honest with yourselves. The last three years of the Bush term, second term, every day the body counts, the allegations of terrorism committed by our Marines, the effort to discredit every aspect of the war, the effort to make it look like we shouldn't have gone, that Bush's motives were impure. They were just personal because Saddam had once tried to kill his father.

So it's not a stretch to assert and to believe that the Democrats don't have a problem with the American military losing, particularly if they can saddle the defeat around the Republicans. Well, I hate to tell you, because if Iraq falls, whose fault has it always been? It's always been Bush's. "It's one of these things that poor Obama inherited. Oh, it's so bad, and it's so much worse than he was told."

It was like the economy. It was so much worse than what Obama was told, and it was so bad, it took him much longer to fix these things than he planned, and it was all Bush's fault. If Iraq falls, and if Afghanistan falls, I'm telling you that Obama and his media acolytes are gonna blame it all on Bush, and they're gonna do it because they think it advances their political agenda.

So it is by no means a stretch to make this allegation. Now, let's listen to Obama. Grab sound bite 25. This meeting at the White House after a meeting with the Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, Q&A with the media. The reporter said, "Are you considering drone strikes or any further action to stop insurgents in Iraq?"

OBAMA: My team is working around the clock to identify how we can provide the most effective assistance to them. I don't rule out anything because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria, for that matter. It's fair to say that in our consultations with the Iraqis, there will be some short-term, immediate things that need to be done militarily -- and, you know, our national security team is looking at all the options. But this should be also a wake-up call for the Iraqi government.

RUSH: All right. As usual, everything Obama said before the word "but" is meaningless. Let me explain. (imitating Obama) "My team's working around the clock. We've gotta identify how we can provide the most effective assistance to them. I don't rule out anything because because because, Iraq and Syria. It's fair to say that in our consultations there is gonna be some short-term immediate things that need to be done and, you know, our national security team will look at all the options. But, but, but," what came next, "this should be a wake-up call for the Iraqi government."

Translation: They're on their own. What do you mean a wake-up call for the Iraqi government? When did they fall asleep? They haven't had time to go to sleep. What does this mean, a wake-up call for the Iraqi government? What it means is they're on their own. And the rest of this was just for media consumption and reportage. The Regime is considering action to blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, thinking about it, working very hard, consultation with Iraq, blah, blah, blah. That's what the low-information crowd is supposed to hear. It's what Michael Moore and Code Pink and the rest are supposed to ignore.

The real meat is after the word "but." This should be a wake-up call for the Iraqi government. Meaning they're on their own. These things are not easy for me to say, folks, but I'm not here to come up short. And it's, to me, inescapable. Just look at the Democrats' behavior while the Iraq war was ongoing. Now, some of you might say, "But wait, Rush, and I remember you even saying they would love to saddle Bush with the defeat. But if they take over and this war is still going on, they did not want the defeat to happen on their watch."

Well, remember, Obama's already claimed victory for the war. We played the sound bite, 2011, Obama took credit. The Iraq war was won, and he took credit for it. Now this is new stuff. And I guarantee you, like everything else, it's gonna be blamed on Bush. Obama fixed this. This is something that was fixed, it was done. Now the Iraqis have done something, and those Iraqis were Bush's people, Nouri al-Maliki, Chalabi. These are all Bush's people. I know how this is gonna play out, and I know that everything they do is political. I also know that I have to do this.
...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/06/12/obama_happily_hands_iraq_and_afghanistan_to_al_qaeda_to_discredit_george_w_bush
Oh Limbaugh, so courageous sitting behind his golden EIB mic raging against liberals :911:

But enough about how awesome I am, let's talk about how awesome I am!

quote:

RUSH: Even when I don't say anything, I get credit for it. Even when I don't do anything, I get credit for it -- or even when I don't say anything or do anything, I get blamed for it. It happens. NBC Today Show today, Kelly O'Donnell reporting on Dave Brat's primary victory over Eric Cantor, talking about what Brat did yesterday.

O'DONNELL: Brat was not at his own headquarters and kept a very low profile Wednesday. Rush Limbaugh spoke up for him.

RUSH ARCHIVE: Dave Brat is not a wacko. He's not a kook. He's an economics professor.

O'DONNELL: The aides who ran Brat's campaign say they are suddenly swamped with calls and requests.

RUSH: So it is I, El Rushbo, speaking up for Brat. It is I, El Rushbo, doing the heavy lifting for Brat. (chuckles) Can you believe this? Get this next one. This is yesterday in Boston on the radio. Some guy from the Cook Political Report asked national editor Amy Walter about this loss. She was asked, "What about crossover voters? I'm reading here that they didn't come out in such numbers."

WALTER: If you went into the most Democratic precincts in his district, the turnout was really pretty abysmal. Where Eric Cantor lost was in heavily Republican areas of the district. He lost among Republicans. And I think one thing we have to remember, too, is, ahh, the amount of national attention that was being brought to bear in this race -- folks like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham -- really encouraging folks to turn out. So you have that added momentum the weekend before the election.

RUSH: Now, it'd be easy for me to play this and let it go and let it slide. But, folks, those of you who listen here regularly every day know the facts. This is a typical, by the way, low-information, inside-the-Beltway political reporter blissfully unaware. I do not get involved in primaries. I have had that policy since day one.

Well, it might have taken a couple of years, but I've had that policy for 23 years. I do not get involved in primaries. How many of you have called me over the years angry at me for that, wishing I would get involved? "Rush, you're gonna have to get involved. Now it's got down to nut-cracking time here, it's too crucial. We've gotta get the conservative in here."

I don't get involved in primaries, and I didn't get involved in this one. Can I tell you another reason why? Yes, I can, because it's my program, it's my mouth, and I'm in charge of both. There's another reason why I don't get involved in primaries. If you have looked at any media either in print or on the air about the Brat victory, what are you hearing? You're hearing that Brat had nothing to do with it.

You are hearing that a whole bunch of conservatives in talk radio are responsible for Brat's victory. Now, I don't deny that a whole lot of people spoke up for him, but what is the real message here? What is the underlying premise of reporting this? When's the last time...? When Obama wins, do they credit the media for it? They credit Obama; they credit the campaign; they credit the consultants; they credit the voters.

When a guy like Brat wins, it can't be because he was any good, and it can't be that Republican voters were able to make up their own minds. No, no, no! Because you people are mind-numbed robots who can't and don't do anything until you're told. It is a subtle continuation of the idea that you are brainless and mindless, and you sit out there in your stupidity waiting for marching orders.

That's another reason why I don't do primaries.

I do not want to give the left, the Democrats, and the media that ammo. This is not to be critical of anybody. People that do this can do it any way they want; that's fine. Free market. Have at it. My only point is, don't ignore Brat. He was the candidate. He's the guy who got the votes. People showed up and voted for him. I don't deny that there were education efforts taking place to let people know, but I think people were mad at Eric Cantor no matter what.

I think there are a whole lot of Republicans that people are mad at no matter what.

I think Eric Cantor was in trouble no matter what, because of substance, because of ideas. Ideas matter. Ideas and substance have consequences, and Eric Cantor just learned them. So another reason, just to restate, that I stay out of primaries, is I don't want to give the left the ammo to suggest that any result is illegitimate, which is what they're trying to do, by pointing out that the voters "only did what they did because they were told to do it by powerful people in talk radio." What does that do? It diminishes the candidate. It diminishes the voters, and it perpetuates this idea that you and everybody else that chooses conservatism in the media is really an idiot, unable to make up your own mind, incapable of thinking yourself.

Whereas when Obama wins, did they credit, say, Chuck Todd? Did they credit, talk about what a great job the New York Times did for the guy? No way. He got all the credit. Yeah, I did. But Obama got all the credit. And his campaign consultants got all the credit. And David "Fluff" got all the credit. They didn't waste any time, and they didn't say that Democrat voters were dumb idiots that had to be guided into voting for Obama. They left it up to everybody to conclude that people independently, brilliantly made up their minds about Obama. I resent this I can't tell you how much. It's been going on for as long as I've been doing this program. It's just another reason why I don't get involved in primaries 'cause I don't want to have anything happen here actually take away from whoever wins these things.

There are other reasons, too, that I've mentioned before. My success is not determined by who wins elections. Ratings, all that. That's another thing. Even conservative media people out there, "Well, these rabid talk radio people, they're the problem in the Republican Party, 'cause all they care about is their ratings. And so they're getting people all worked up about immigration. They're getting people all scared, and that's why Brat won, because talk radio is so reactionary."

You got people like John Podhoretz and other so-called conservative media leveling that charge, saying that all we're interested in here is ratings. These people don't have the slightest idea if that's what they think how ratings are achieved. I'll just remind you again, I've been saying this for 25 years: My success is not determined by who wins elections. If it were I wouldn't be here still, would I?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2..._wins_elections
This is the same guy that created Operation Chaos, btw, which was Republicans crossing over to vote in Democratic primaries to nominate Hillary instead of Obama :laugh:

EDIT: My bad, had the candidates in reverse. Limbaugh wanted Hillary nominated because she would have been hypothetically be easier to defeat in the general. This is even more funny now considering how weak the Republican field is going into 2016.

kik2dagroin fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Jun 13, 2014

# ? Jun 13, 2014 16:23

Zwabu: Aug 7, 2006

kik2dagroin posted:

Limbaugh wanted Hillary nominated because she would have been hypothetically be easier to defeat in the general.

I don't think Operation Chaos was about this, even if it said it was. It's more that it was pretty clear that Obama was definitely going to win the primaries by any reasonable math by that point, and the only purpose of propping Hillary up at that point was not because she could win (if she were the one with the commanding delegate lead at that point it really wouldn't have surprised me if he would have advocated for people to vote Obama), but just to hurt Obama and lessen his chances by making the primary longer, more bruising and drawn out, wasting financial resources and leaving some embittered Hillary supporters to stay home and not vote in the general election etc.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 16:41

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

mr. mephistopheles posted:

The commonness of typos and straight up grammatical errors in national news stories is mind-boggling and sad. I can't decide if it's a symptom of the death of journalism or a cause, though.

I notice this a lot myself. I think it has mostly to do with automation, auto-correct, relying on spell checking instead of proof-reading, dealing with much tighter deadlines, lower budgets, focusing on ad sales rather than editing and things like that than it does the need for a "School for People Who Don't Write Too Good".

It mostly has to do with an editor's job consisting of "run spell check, do word count, skim article" and how much of the job is automated than anything else. That and some laziness and a desire to be first with a story.

Shoot, I'm an old school graphic designer and I still notice dumb poo poo like kerning, paragraph breaks, widowed text, conflicting font sizes and all sorts of dumb poo poo.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 16:48

Berke Negri: Feb 15, 2012; Les Ricains tuent et moi je mue
Mao Mao
Les fous sont rois et moi je bois
Mao Mao
Les bombes tonnent et moi je sonne
Mao Mao
Les bebes fuient et moi je fuis
Mao Mao

The constant references to Michael Moore, Code Pink, MoveOn, Jack Murtha etc. are really jarring. Its like his brain has been arrested at the gates of 2008 and he's still leaning on the old boogeymen.

Is Code Pink even around anymore?

# ? Jun 13, 2014 16:52

moths: Aug 25, 2004; I would also still appreciate some danger.

Are they seriously going to make a stink about Obama not diving into Iraq 2?

# ? Jun 13, 2014 16:58

Intel&Sebastian: Oct 20, 2002; colonel...
i'm trying to sneak around
but i'm dummy thicc
and the clap of my ass cheeks
keeps alerting the guards!

moths posted:

Are they seriously going to make a stink about Obama not diving into Iraq 2?

I find it really gross that McCain and his ilk are doing the rounds crying about how Obama "lost" the Iraq war that they "won" and that he won't [chickenshit word mincing to imply sending troops in without saying send troops in], as if the rest of the country is clamoring to get back into the Iraq war and Obama is stopping us from having fun or something. gently caress off McCain, you loving lost exactly because we knew you never saw a war you didn't want to send 18 year olds to die in and now you walk around like you told us so.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 17:07

Nativity In Black: Oct 24, 2012; If you're gonna have roads, you're gonna have roadkill.

moths posted:

Are they seriously going to make a stink about Obama not diving into Iraq 2?

This is basically a no win situation for him politically. If he sends in troops the Republicans will bitch about him getting us involved in another conflict, if he doesn't they will bitch about how he is weak and lost our war.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 17:18

Iron Crowned: May 6, 2003; by Hand Knit

Nativity In Black posted:

This is basically a no win situation for him politically. If he sends in troops the Republicans will bitch about him getting us involved in another conflict, if he doesn't they will bitch about how he is weak and lost our war.

So you mean just like every situation that has happened since he took office?

# ? Jun 13, 2014 17:20

Zwabu: Aug 7, 2006

If the GOP "won" the Iraq war, can someone explain why we were still there with a massive troop commitment and no clear plan to exit when Bush left office?

# ? Jun 13, 2014 17:23

Vriess: Apr 30, 2013; Select the items of interest in the scene.

Returned ~~with Honor~~.

moths posted:

Are they seriously going to make a stink about Obama not diving into Iraq 2?

Obama knows that all the best films come in trilogies. :getin:

# ? Jun 13, 2014 17:25

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Zwabu posted:

If the GOP "won" the Iraq war, can someone explain why we were still there with a massive troop commitment and no clear plan to exit when Bush left office?

What do you mean? They had a perfectly clear exit plan for Iraq:

1) Have Obama withdraw the troops
2) Blame Obama if anything goes wrong

# ? Jun 13, 2014 17:26

OAquinas: Jan 27, 2008; Biden has sat immobile on the Iron Throne of America. He is the Master of Malarkey by the will of the gods, and master of a million votes by the might of his inexhaustible calamari.

Zwabu posted:

If the GOP "won" the Iraq war, can someone explain why we were still there with a massive troop commitment and no clear plan to exit when Bush left office?

Their entire plan and rationale for that reasoning comes straight out of the 90s.

"SUUUUUURGE!"

# ? Jun 13, 2014 17:30

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

quote:

The assertion that I'm making is that if Obama and the Democrats can further cement the notion that Iraq was a total mistake made by Bush and the Republicans, they will do it. If they can discredit Cheney and everybody involved -- Rumsfeld, Bush -- by letting Iraq fall, that's a big political home run for them. You have to be honest with yourselves about them, though.

That's why I said in the first hour, it takes courage to admit the truth about liberalism and liberals, and they are... Let me put it this way. They're not disappointed at military failure. They're not disappointed at all. But if this strikes you as a bit harsh, may I remind you of their behavior while we were in Iraq, for the last three years? MoveOn.org, Code Pink, you name it.

Obama, John Kerry, John Murtha. Every day they we're doing everything they could to discredit the war effort in Iraq. All it took was one allegation that Marines, say, in Haditha were raping and terrorizing women and children, and out went Jack Murtha and John Kerry to believe it and condemn these Marines before there had been any investigation. They couldn't wait!
...
These are the same people that were doing everything they could to saddle George W. Bush with a loss in Iraq. Be honest with yourselves. The last three years of the Bush term, second term, every day the body counts, the allegations of terrorism committed by our Marines, the effort to discredit every aspect of the war, the effort to make it look like we shouldn't have gone, that Bush's motives were impure. They were just personal because Saddam had once tried to kill his father.

So it's not a stretch to assert and to believe that the Democrats don't have a problem with the American military losing, particularly if they can saddle the defeat around the Republicans. Well, I hate to tell you, because if Iraq falls, whose fault has it always been? It's always been Bush's. "It's one of these things that poor Obama inherited. Oh, it's so bad, and it's so much worse than he was told."

It was like the economy. It was so much worse than what Obama was told, and it was so bad, it took him much longer to fix these things than he planned, and it was all Bush's fault. If Iraq falls, and if Afghanistan falls, I'm telling you that Obama and his media acolytes are gonna blame it all on Bush, and they're gonna do it because they think it advances their political agenda.

I keep waiting for him to say "and here's why they're wrong" but no, he just keeps saying true things. Like if he predicts the obvious things people are going to say it makes him more credible when he does say lovely opinions. It's like if I say "the sun will rise tomorrow" and when it does I expect people to take my opinions more seriously like hey, this guy's on to something.

Of course the media and the left will use this as an example of Bush's lovely foreign policy and devastating war, Rush. Because it is.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 17:30

sweart gliwere: Jul 5, 2005; _{better to die an evil wizard,

than to live as a grand one.}; Pillbug

kik2dagroin posted:

_{CALLER: What I was calling about was last night I was watching Fox News and I got really depressed seeing the Iraq situation there. My daughter-in-law's only brother was killed in Iraq in 2008, and it was just devastating for her family.

RUSH: I'm sure.

CALLER: And so I feel like, you know, maybe Cory's life was in vain because of what we're seeing. Obama just threw it away. Everything that Bush had done -- and Bush had done some good things. He wasn't perfect, but he did some good things, and that coupled with the border situation with all those children, it was just a lot to take last night.

CALLER: Well, I was thinking of that last night. If we would just send in some jets and take care of 'em like we did in Baghdad, it didn't take very long. Don't put anymore boots on the ground, but take them out.

CALLER: We can't just allow them to take over that country again and undo everything that was done through 4500 young men and women losing their lives.

RUSH: The assertion that I'm making is that if Obama and the Democrats can further cement the notion that Iraq was a total mistake made by Bush and the Republicans, they will do it. If they can discredit Cheney and everybody involved -- Rumsfeld, Bush -- by letting Iraq fall, that's a big political home run for them. You have to be honest with yourselves about them, though.}

Obviously Rush listeners don't know and don't care to learn about the botched foundation for OIF. Bullshit WMD premise from the start with ridiculous expectations ("We will be greeted as liberators"), de-Baathification to a harmful extent, no-bid Halliburton contracts, too few troops (150K sent vs 500K recommended) and overreliance on PMCs, imperial insensitivity ("loving Hajis learn to drive, this poo poo wouldn't happen"), failure to protect infrastructure and cultural sites, shock-and-awe and the awkward transition to hearts-and-minds, etc. Then the weird stuff beyond plain incompetence we learned in the later years, like that Gog+Magog chat with Chirac and the creepy scripture-laced pro-war crusader slides from Ashcroft, etc.

Still, it's surprising every time. Whenever anyone tries to say Bush "won" Iraq or somehow imbued those thousands of casualties with greater meaning, it's amazing. Are we supposed to have a forever-war without the draft, somehow? Is the concept of international political groups being more flexible than old European war models really up for debate? They will never state just how Obama could "win" because having convictions means they could be proven wrong, I just want to know how they justify praising Bush for the wars.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 17:34

Zwabu: Aug 7, 2006

sweart gliwere posted:

I just want to know how they justify praising Bush for the wars.

Because Bush starting/continuing the wars was the opposite of Obama ending them, and Bush = good and Obama = bad, what's so hard to understand?

# ? Jun 13, 2014 17:36

Intel&Sebastian: Oct 20, 2002; colonel...
i'm trying to sneak around
but i'm dummy thicc
and the clap of my ass cheeks
keeps alerting the guards!

Discredit the war effort in Iraq? There's barely even a handful of Republicans out there who still carry water for GWB's foreign cowboy adventure of death. I'd be shocked that the GOP and the Chickenhawks even want to be talking about Iraq if they hadn't already shown they are hellbent on making themselves look like idiot sociopaths at every opportunity.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 17:56

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Obviously Obama was supposed defy the Status of Forces Agreement Bush negotiated with the Iraqi government and declare war on them all over again when they refused to allow our troops to stay past 2011 with immunity to Iraqi law.

drat you Obama, for obeying Bush's treaty!

# ? Jun 13, 2014 18:47

That Irish Gal: Jul 8, 2012; Your existence amounts to nothing more than a goldfish swimming upriver.

^{PS: We are all actually cats}

moths posted:

Are they seriously going to make a stink about Obama not diving into Iraq 2?

And the longer this goes on without Obama doing so, the longer we can all cling to the joy that at least we didn't elect President Mittens The Warbot Romney :mitt:

# ? Jun 13, 2014 18:50

Spacedad: Sep 11, 2001; We go play orbital catch around the curvature of the earth, son.

I'm posting this here to contrast the bullshit right wingers always throw out about immigrants with the Charles Dickens-like nightmare of what actually results from that racist immigrant-bashing hogwash.

Part1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsCiIBSh-kE

Part2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA4_RG3TSx0

Also because this is a pressing issue, and I want to see if any rear end in a top hat racist nutjobs have said anything about it. I am betting it is some of the unconscionable dishonesty about the widespread humanitarian crisis in South America & Mexico claiming that immigrants are sending for their kids rather than it being a massive case of unaccompanied desperate children fleeing on their own from horribly violent & impoverished circumstances.

Ironically the border clampdown has actually helped create this situation, because it's made it much harder for families here to go back and visit their children by essentially walling them in.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 19:18

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

Nativity In Black posted:

This is basically a no win situation for him politically. If he sends in troops the Republicans will bitch about him getting us involved in another conflict, if he doesn't they will bitch about how he is weak and lost our war.

They ALL are. If Obama does a thing, it's bad. If he doesn't do a thing, it's bad he didn't. I mean as much as the right attributed this same phenomenon to the Bush Presidency, this time it's actually true. A cursory glance of congressional votes over 2000 - 2008 vs. 2008 - 2012 should be enough to show anyone the difference but, you know,"both sides do it" and all that poo poo.

No they don't. Bush had a lot of congressional support.

Zwabu posted:

If the GOP "won" the Iraq war, can someone explain why we were still there with a massive troop commitment and no clear plan to exit when Bush left office?

"Liberals" did something or another. And the media too. The some socialism happened. I hear it had something to do with freedom and stuff.

BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jun 13, 2014

# ? Jun 13, 2014 19:25

esto es malo: Aug 3, 2006; Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

Tea Party father of the SO still doesn't know I'm not a hardcore right winger somehow and I tried to get him to sincerely answer a few questions. Mainly, if Obama is doing so bad why are the right losing elections and what should obama be doing to "fix the country" in his eyes. Basically, anything outside donning a rambo headband plus ar-15 and gunning down poor people himself is tantamount to capitulation that is ruining our country. I decided to not waste my time and instead tried to get his opinions on matters relating to finance and seeing if he though Goldman Sachs etc had a portion of the blame and he seemed to agree, but as soon as he realized that we were agreeing that the SEC regulatory actions have been pitiful half measures without solving any problems he tried to somehow purport the solution would be less regulation. Like, the notion of immense amounts of power being related to the obscene wealth of few individuals made perfect sense, but he still couldn't be arsed to accept that anything to prevent more abuse was A Good Thing To Do.

I've tried to avoid discussions that ask him direction questions because it always leads to spitting out some talking point that makes little sense. Even after holding his hand through analyzing the problems outside of his pre-determined talking points he desperately tries to return to them. I foolishly think I will end up slowly dragging him into reality, but even if it doesn't you can see that he at least is noticing the disconnect at times however brief they may be.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 19:42

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

I can't ascertain whether I'm supposed to feel sorry for these border children or be fearful of their switchblades. In any case, Fauxbama.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 19:43

turnip kid: May 24, 2010

I can't seem to avoid seeing this idiot on my timeline.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 20:18

moths: Aug 25, 2004; I would also still appreciate some danger.

Reminder that Romney strapped a dog to his roof rack and drove around until it poo poo himself.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 20:35

Die Sexmonster!: Nov 30, 2005

moths posted:

Reminder that Romney strapped a dog to his roof rack and drove around until it poo poo himself.

And then blasted it off with a garden hose. I just don't get it. The idiot could easily afford transportation for his entire family and any number of pets comfortably.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 20:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 15:26

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

Pyroxene Stigma posted:

And then blasted it off with a garden hose. I just don't get it. The idiot could easily afford transportation for his entire family and any number of pets comfortably.

You don't go from being a broke college student that has to sell stock to pay their way through school into a billionaire by spending money on frivolous luxuries.

# ? Jun 13, 2014 21:11

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

«‹›3446 »