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!

«‹›3442 »

beatlegs: Mar 11, 2001

Mr Interweb posted:

Did...did Rush just admit that trickle-down economics is a load of horseshit?

Well, he acknowleged the lack of trickle-down, but in the next breath blamed it on big business' corrupt alliance with Obama. Because REAL Republicans would share the wealth, you see, but unfortunately the 1% has been Borg-ified by the socialist usurper.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 06:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 22, 2024 09:04

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

Republicans give lip service to "trickle down" being bullshit because they know it doesn't poll well, but if you keep them talking long enough they will advocate for "supply-side economics like advocated for by genius Milton Friedman" in order to address problems. If you get them drunk they'll lament the fact that their 80's buzzword became derogatory, and try to claim that calling "supply-side economics," "trickle-down economics" was a successful conspiracy by the left wing.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 06:39

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

Republicans posted:

Is there any good article about who exactly the five Taliban guys we traded are? The claims people on the right are making about them are getting more and more wild. Oliver North today on Medved claimed they were responsible for the deaths of over 250,000 people.

Here are dossiers compiled by nonprofit overseas news groups. I've not heard anyone provide a criticism of them, but they seem very good.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 06:45

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

Rhesus Pieces posted:

Because there's just no way that any company could be interested in marketing to an until recently ignored demographic while getting some positive social media attention at the same time.

No, airing a graham cracker commercial featuring a gay couple is obviously all about attacking conservatives. Everything that isn't explicitly conservative is about attacking conservatives, after all.

When you get to the point where a commercial featuring a happy couple eating graham crackers is a "taunt", you've really got some serious thinking and reflecting to do.

No, you see - anything that acknowledges gay couples and families as 'things that exist' is an attack on me and my particular religion personally because...

lil mortimer posted:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ry.html?hpid=z6

She (the muslim woman at the heritage foundation fiasco) brought up muslims because their voices are totally being ignored in this latest round of demonizing and depersonalizing the tragedy of Benghazi into an attack on Obama. The narrative of "OBAMA BAD, WHY HIM COVER UP BENGHAZI???" demands a one-dimensional depiction of the hostile parties involved, which are taken for granted as the usual 'aggressive radical muslims' stereotypes while ignoring the larger details that lead to the tragedy happening. This is because not only will explain why there was an outpouring of mourning and sympathy from the locals over the attack (which undermines larger right wing bigotry against muslims/arabs) but will also louse up the simplistic 'OBAMA BAD MAN BAD BAD BAD' narrative by taking into full context the evidence as it stands rather than making up phony conspiracy narratives. This tacit sweeping under the carpet of any complexity with the larger context of the tragedy plays further into the cynically opportunistic narrative that the heritage foundation wants to play up.

It's steamrollering human beings to push a very zealous attack-dog agenda aimed at the president without a care for how it affects those nearby. The blatant stereotyping of "WHERE ARE THE PEACEFUL ARABS HURRR HURR" and outright making of up of fake statistics to justify bigotry on display at the conference is on-tape evidence of this. The fact that the feelings of arabs and muslims are considered irrelevant to a narrative that involves arabs and muslims - to the point that it would cause someone to lash out aggressively and angrily at someone bringing that up - should send up massive red flags that something's horribly not right here.

Also, in her demonizing of the larger group of muslims around the world, "THE PEACEFUL MAJORITY WERE IRRELEVANT" is practically the battle-cry of every genocidal maniac in history - that there's merely another version of the same old "only good X is a dead X" horseshit.

Oh and several of those groups she listed were largely Christians - such as the nazis. I guess that means the peaceful majority of Christians are irrelevant as well?

Spacedad fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Jun 18, 2014

# ? Jun 18, 2014 07:00

HFX: Nov 29, 2004

Darkman Fanpage posted:

A lawyer had to do their job?! Scandalous!

Nothing new here. We hate lawyers who defend people accused of crimes all the time. Better to let those accused rot, becuase they must be guilty. Even the democrats join in. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...60b9_story.html

# ? Jun 18, 2014 08:13

BBJoey: Oct 31, 2012

Spacedad posted:

Prepare to get very very very very very angry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcAWkW4HCxE

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/13/cnn-cuts-school-shootings-since-newtown-from-74-to-15-to-appease-gun-advocates/

I think the worst part about this is that even if you accept their manipulation of words to remove as many school shootings from the books as possible, there have still been 15 school shootings in the USA in the past 18 months. Based on the best statistics I could find (which admittedly was only on wikipedia), in the entire rest of the world in that timeframe there were 6 school shootings. Even after the efforts of the most ardent pro-gun talking heads, the US still makes up over 70% of the school shootings in the entire world over the past 18 months.

So if we accept the gun rights supporters' statistical games, what do we have? School shootings in the US aren't completely apocalyptic - instead, they're just utterly catastrophic (substitute adjectives of appropriate relative severity if you feel the need). The US still far and away leads the world in school shooting incidents. The number of incidents may be smaller, sure, but is the argument here "oh, having a school shooting almost every month actually isn't that bad and no action should be taken"? Is that the message pro-gun people are sending?

# ? Jun 18, 2014 08:24

Rexicon1: Oct 9, 2007; A Shameful Path Led You Here

BBJoey posted:

I think the worst part about this is that even if you accept their manipulation of words to remove as many school shootings from the books as possible, there have still been 15 school shootings in the USA in the past 18 months. Based on the best statistics I could find (which admittedly was only on wikipedia), in the entire rest of the world in that timeframe there were 6 school shootings. Even after the efforts of the most ardent pro-gun talking heads, the US still makes up over 70% of the school shootings in the entire world over the past 18 months.

So if we accept the gun rights supporters' statistical games, what do we have? School shootings in the US aren't completely apocalyptic - instead, they're just utterly catastrophic (substitute adjectives of appropriate relative severity if you feel the need). The US still far and away leads the world in school shooting incidents. The number of incidents may be smaller, sure, but is the argument here "oh, having a school shooting almost every month actually isn't that bad and no action should be taken"? Is that the message pro-gun people are sending?

The pro-gun solution, unsurprisingly, is more guns. Guns for everybody!

# ? Jun 18, 2014 10:56

Iron Crowned: May 6, 2003; by Hand Knit

Rexicon1 posted:

The pro-gun solution, unsurprisingly, is more guns. Guns for everybody!

We all see how that worked out in Nevada. No wait, they don't ever mention that one.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 12:54

Zwabu: Aug 7, 2006

sweart gliwere posted:

Like bumfuck Arkansas is ever at risk for a terrorist attack. Show me one republican presidential candidate who's an outspoken fan of NYC (not Rudy aside from Wall Street's effect on the economy). None of them care for big inclusive metro areas, they're pandering to a non-existent white rural majority to whatever extent they're acting populist at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/washington/12assets.html?_r=0

quote:

July 12, 2006
Come One, Come All, Join the Terror Target List
By ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON, July 11 � It reads like a tally of terrorist targets that a child might have written: Old MacDonald�s Petting Zoo, the Amish Country Popcorn factory, the Mule Day Parade, the Sweetwater Flea Market and an unspecified �Beach at End of a Street.�

But the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, in a report released Tuesday, found that the list was not child�s play: all these �unusual or out-of-place� sites �whose criticality is not readily apparent� are inexplicably included in the federal antiterrorism database.

The National Asset Database, as it is known, is so flawed, the inspector general found, that as of January, Indiana, with 8,591 potential terrorist targets, had 50 percent more listed sites than New York (5,687) and more than twice as many as California (3,212), ranking the state the most target-rich place in the nation.

The database is used by the Homeland Security Department to help divvy up the hundreds of millions of dollars in antiterrorism grants each year, including the program announced in May that cut money to New York City and Washington by 40 percent, while significantly increasing spending for cities including Louisville, Ky., and Omaha.

�We don�t find it embarrassing,� said the department�s deputy press secretary, Jarrod Agen. �The list is a valuable tool.�

But the audit says that lower-level department officials agreed that some older information in the inventory �was of low quality and that they had little faith in it.�

�The presence of large numbers of out-of-place assets taints the credibility of the data,� the report says.

In addition to the petting zoo, in Woodville, Ala., and the Mule Day Parade in Columbia, Tenn., the auditors questioned many entries, including �Nix�s Check Cashing,� �Mall at Sears,� �Ice Cream Parlor,� �Tackle Shop,� �Donut Shop,� �Anti-Cruelty Society� and �Bean Fest.�

...

# ? Jun 18, 2014 12:57

Jesus III: May 23, 2007

Good Citizen posted:

Hotwire.com.

If you ever want an unfiltered stream of conservatives getting angry about every gay and swear word on TV then http://onemillionmoms.com/ has you covered

Man, if these Mom's boycott everything they say they are going to, they will truly be living Biblically; as in living in incredibly primitive conditions.

I wonder what it is like to be offended all the time?

# ? Jun 18, 2014 13:53

Madmarker: Jan 7, 2007

Jesus III posted:

I wonder what it is like to be offended all the time?

Read the Freep thread for a day straight, and then you will know.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 13:59

radical meme: Apr 17, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

The GOP/TeaParty/ConservativeMovement is filled with people that don't accept the fact that you can never put the toothpaste back into the tube. Hordes of people that don't want to go forward into the future, they want to go back to a past that really never existed in the first place. That's Mark Levin's entire schtick; he's constantly jabbering on about going back to a time when the Constitution was properly interpreted and government did its job right. But, he never pins down when that time was. Sometimes, he goes off on FDR but then others he tears into Teddy Roosevelt and even before that. It's impossible to pin him down as to when that perfect time in America existed. Going backwards is the whole point of Levin's Liberty Amendments bullshit. These people relish the idea of living in the past.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 14:13

Iron Crowned: May 6, 2003; by Hand Knit

One of the things that gets to me about those types is they'll even go back to the "Founding Fathers."

"If it should have been a universal right, the founding fathers would have put it in the Constition. :colbert:

"

No, you dipshit, doctoring back then involved a lot of leaches and no painkillers when they yanked your teeth.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 14:18

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.

Madmarker posted:

Read the Freep thread for a day straight, and then you will know.

Warning: do not actually do this.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 14:49

paranoid randroid: Mar 4, 2007

Dr.Zeppelin posted:

Do you think she still is after today? If not, realistically what is the breaking point for someone like that?

Beats me, dude. She also got poo poo on extensively by Occupy Portland for being a rethuglican infiltrator with a problematic headscarf, so honestly if I was her I'd probably be voting straight ticket gently caress All Ya'll Party. I think in a lot of cases, party identification is pretty set in stone for people for one reason or another. Voting for someone from across the isle is one thing, but identifying as the other side is too big a step.

It makes my soul hurt that a genuinely good person is getting slapped in the face on a regular basis. Politics sucks and is lovely garbage.

paranoid randroid fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Jun 18, 2014

# ? Jun 18, 2014 15:36

Capfalcon: Apr 6, 2012; No Boots on the Ground,
Puny Mortals!

Glen Beck says that the liberals were right that Iraq was a bad deciaion.

Excuse me I need to go sit down.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 15:40

radical meme: Apr 17, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Capfalcon posted:

Glen Beck says that the liberals were right that Iraq was a bad deciaion.

Excuse me I need to go sit down.

His admission is still full of poo poo. He says:

quote:

�In spite of the things I felt at the time when we went into war, liberals said, �We shouldn�t get involved, we shouldn�t nation-build and there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free,�� Beck said. �I thought that was insulting at the time. Everybody wants to be free.�

On Tuesday, Beck admitted, �You cannot force democracy on the Iraqis or anybody else, it doesn�t work. They don�t understand it or even really want it.�

Nobody was saying that poo poo back then. That's more loving racist than anything that was actually being said by either political party at the time. gently caress you Beck.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 15:48

ReindeerF: Apr 20, 2002; Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro

GAYMIEN SANDOW posted:

I saw some hotels.com or whatever commercial with a gay couple and thought it was cool we were finally to a point where nobody is outraged by it and, welp.

Gay advertising in travel and hospitality has been going on very publicly for about a decade and a half with major brands and major campaigns. Put plainly, gay folks are a hugely valuable demographic in marketing terms, and you can find ads for gay resorts, gay cruises, gay holidays, etc, going way back because the tourism industry was like, "Dude, are you kidding? These people are loaded and they love travel, alcohol and food."

# ? Jun 18, 2014 16:38

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!

quote:

He and [his wife] Tonette married on Reagan�s birthday, and every year they celebrate their wedding anniversary / Reagan�s birthday by serving the Gipper�s favorite dishes, such as macaroni-and-cheese casserole and red, white, and blue jelly beans.

I don't even have to wonder whether they think Obama is worshiped like some sort of godhead by LIBERALS and THE MEDIA.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 16:59

Iron Crowned: May 6, 2003; by Hand Knit

Intel&Sebastian posted:

I don't even have to wonder whether they think Obama is worshiped like some sort of godhead by LIBERALS and THE MEDIA.

Hell, Republicans are weird like that. I watched the documentary "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and one of the people they followed named their daughter Reagan. Yes, after that Reagan.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 17:02

Darkman Fanpage: Jul 4, 2012

In the future Reagan will replace Jesus Christ.

"And tho did Reagan star alongside a chimp in 'Bedtime for Bonzo'..."

# ? Jun 18, 2014 17:11

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!

Here's an idea: Lets take all the people who are angry about the US Patent office putting the nix on the Redskins' name, beat them up, corral them into a tiny corner of their own property in a mobile home and let them continue their time honored tradition of using racial slurs there while the rest of us pat ourselves on the back for doing them such a solid.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 17:22

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

radical meme posted:

The GOP/TeaParty/ConservativeMovement is filled with people that don't accept the fact that you can never put the toothpaste back into the tube. Hordes of people that don't want to go forward into the future, they want to go back to a past that really never existed in the first place. That's Mark Levin's entire schtick; he's constantly jabbering on about going back to a time when the Constitution was properly interpreted and government did its job right. But, he never pins down when that time was. Sometimes, he goes off on FDR but then others he tears into Teddy Roosevelt and even before that. It's impossible to pin him down as to when that perfect time in America existed. Going backwards is the whole point of Levin's Liberty Amendments bullshit. These people relish the idea of living in the past.

The time periods they pine for are fantasy versions of America immediately after the revolution and the 1950s. To a lesser extent they also want a fantasy version of various parts of the 19th century, especially the era of railroad barons. These were the time periods where it was best to be rich white guys, which is, of course, one of the primary demographics of the GOP. They don't like the changes happening because that demographic is shrinking.

The shrieking about change is because they're losing their power and they know it.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 17:25

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Iron Crowned posted:

One of the things that gets to me about those types is they'll even go back to the "Founding Fathers."

"If it should have been a universal right, the founding fathers would have put it in the Constition. "

No, you dipshit, doctoring back then involved a lot of leaches and no painkillers when they yanked your teeth.

If the founding fathers had considered freedom a universal right they would have banned slavery in the constitution. Hey that actually makes sense

# ? Jun 18, 2014 17:36

The Rokstar: Aug 19, 2002; by FactsAreUseless

Pretty much any time you see a right winger saying "We want America back," just replace "America" with "the Confederacy." They're Neo-Confederates.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 17:49

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!

My preferred retort is "no take backs, finders keepers"

# ? Jun 18, 2014 17:50

Axolotl: Jan 23, 2002; Whatever

Iron Crowned posted:

Hell, Republicans are weird like that. I watched the documentary "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and one of the people they followed named their daughter Reagan. Yes, after that Reagan.

Or the scene in "Jesus Camp" where the kids were praying to at for George W. Bush, as represented by a cardboard cutout placed prominently at the front of the church during the sermon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxdt_f0hwUg&feature=kp

But, hey, liberals are the ones who worship their leaders...

Axolotl fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Jun 18, 2014

# ? Jun 18, 2014 18:00

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

The Rokstar posted:

Pretty much any time you see a right winger saying "We want America back," just replace "America" with "the Confederacy." They're Neo-Confederates.

Sometimes I get the feeling we have been in a North/South Korea situation for 150 years where open hostilities are over but we still hate each other and the war is ongoing.

Axolotl posted:

Or the scene in "Jesus Camp" where the kids were praying to at for George W. Bush, as represented by a cardboard cutout placed prominently at the front of the church during the sermon.

But, hey, liberals are the ones who worship their leaders...

Pretty much everything they complain about the other side doing is massive projection. They know they are guilty of "bad thing" and either assume their enemies do it too or just try and muddy the waters so the "moderate" opinion is everyone is just as bad as each other.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 18:01

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.

I wonder if Scott Walker and his wife argue over who gets to wear the Reagan mask as they finish up their anniversary celebration.

They each have one.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 18:04

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

radical meme posted:

His admission is still full of poo poo. He says:

Nobody was saying that poo poo back then. That's more loving racist than anything that was actually being said by either political party at the time. gently caress you Beck.

Oh they wanted democracy. However, what the US did in the 2003 invasion sowed the seeds for sectarian violence. Disbanding the Iraqi army, 'giving' regions to particular sects, destroying valuable infrastructure thus creating strife among the populace, allowing sectarian conspirators & corrupt assholes to take positions of power, etc. etc. etc. The region also didn't have any terrorism in it prior to our invasion - we effectively suctioned terrorism INTO Iraq, and then it spread like an infection to Syria, and now it's coming back to Iraq again.

The Iraqis who do want legit democracy of course find themselves swept under the carpet by racist fear-mongers like Beck, and also the US gets to take less responsibility for its horribly stupid actions than fear-mongers would like to admit to. This is just another iteration of the 'arabs need a strongman' racism of the past. It's funny how in all this very little attention is paid to talking to the actual Iraqi people - just a lot of pontification.

As a side note; gently caress you, Tony Blair. The current state of Syria and Iraq is DIRECTLY our responsibility and his. Yet this neocon-apologetic shows either his massive incompetence or massive dishonesty (probably both) in trying to spin away the blame for the situation.

Spacedad fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Jun 18, 2014

# ? Jun 18, 2014 18:11

Frog Act: Feb 10, 2012

I wish Edward Said was still alive when I read stuff like Beck's little screed.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 18:13

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

Radish posted:

Pretty much everything they complain about the other side doing is massive projection. They know they are guilty of "bad thing" and either assume their enemies do it too or just try and muddy the waters so the "moderate" opinion is everyone is just as bad as each other.

This is the "brilliance" of Karl Rove. You basically accuse your opponent of what you do, and reframe their strengths as weaknesses.

Three purple hearts? Coward. My guy bravely defended Texas airspace from the VC.

Refuting any of Rove's bullshit comes down to "No, you are!" which plays dumb as hell since we've been hearing that line since childhood.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 18:22

happyhippy: Feb 21, 2005; Playing games, watching movies, owning goons. 'sup; Pillbug

Darkman Fanpage posted:

In the future Reagan will replace Jesus Christ.

And he doth stand up, and stand up he did.
"I give this sacrifice in the name of myself. If you partake in this humble tomato ketchup, you partake in the Lord as you do in me"
And the assembled nodded in agreement and in wisdom.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 18:41

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!

Remember, Ronald Reagan will always be in your heart, even if facts and evidence tell you that he is not.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 18:46

Cythereal: Nov 8, 2009; I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

This seems relevant again.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 18:50

Rip Testes: Jan 29, 2004; I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception.

New 'nonprofit' in the works.

Alliance for a Strong America

# ? Jun 18, 2014 21:11

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/allen-west-claims-obama-creating-saudi-iranian-islamic-caliphate-blames-his-eastern-orientat
West makes my brain hurt. also is it bad that he remindes me of Uncle Rukus from the boondocks

# ? Jun 18, 2014 21:18

An Apple A Gay: Oct 21, 2008

Hannity lied several times today, mentioning that the price of oil had "skyrocketed" when really, no change for the week. loving liar.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 21:22

Gozinbulx: Feb 19, 2004

My god. Our country is so.... weak.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 21:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 22, 2024 09:04

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

Lots of

about the Redskins today!

quote:

RUSH: I want you to imagine the federal government eliminating your private property rights due to the interpretation of political correctness by five people, or a very tiny minority of people. The tiny minority of people are ostensibly, they say, offended by something that you own. Imagine an agency of the federal government, without any proper adjudication before any sort of court, tribunal, or what have you, just comes along and, on their own whim, decides to eliminate your private property rights. Because of interpretation of political correctness, because they're liberals, because they're statists and authoritarians and assigned to them that kind of sweeping power.

That's exactly what the Washington Redskins are dealing with today. The Patent and Trademark Office simply eliminated their right of the Redskins to own that trademark. It doesn't mean they have to change their name. What it means is that if -- and there will be a series of appeals on this. The Redskins will not go down without a war dance. After all the appeals, if this ruling holds, it means that anybody can use the Redskins trademark and logo for anything, that the Washington Redskins do not own their name. That's what this ruling means. They don't have the right because some people are offended. It can be spread around. If you, Snerdley, wanted to start selling caps or T-shirts with the word "Redskins" or "Washington Redskins" and use their logo, you could, because they don't have the right to own it, even though they do own it.

Imagine the federal government taking away your health insurance and your doctor. That's what millions of Americans are dealing with, many more millions to come. Imagine the federal government shutting down coal-fired electric plants on a whim in the name of a hoax, global warming. And as a result, driving up your electricity bills to the point that you have to make life-altering changes in your lifestyle to be able to afford them.
...
So I'm here to issue you another warning. I have here in the Stack of Stuff today a story by a similar type of environmentalist wacko group. They've discovered that your cable box is one of the primary biggest users and thus wasters of electricity in the country, and when you combine the hundreds of millions of cable boxes in this country alone, we're talking about serious global warming. We're talking about serious use of the electricity, and if it's produced by coal, that is bad.

So I am here it tell you, June 18th, keep a sharp eye, because your cable box could well become the next SUV, the next target. Don't doubt me. I'm not making a full-fledged prediction on this right now, just a warning. Imagine the federal government taking away the country's borders. Imagine the federal government just obliterating them. That's what the states are battling. We're all battling a form of tyranny here. It's what happens when the separation of powers concentrates in one branch of the government; there are no checks and balances.
...
This will be the beginning -- I should say, actually, the continuation of even more all-out assaults on private property rights if they offend anybody that's enshrouded in political correctness, is a leftist or believes it and simply wants to deny you what is yours.

So you go ahead, you cheer, if you want, the stripping of trademark rights from the Redskins. No one is safe when the protections of a constitutional republic are stripped away. There is no civil society when private property rights and individual rights are crushed at will on a whim by a centralized, coercive government. You take away private property rights and you may as well take away the right to free speech. And that's exactly what has happened here to the Washington Redskins.

There will be lots of cheering in the news media, in the sports media. Throughout the civil rights coalition there will be all kinds of backslaps and cheers. And they will not be any happier. I want you to note that even if this holds up after all the appeals, and if the Redskins just have to sit there and grin and take it while their private property rights are dismantled, the people responsible for it will not be happy. They never are. They'll gloat maybe for a while, but they'll just be angrier and angrier at those things remaining that offend them and will set out to attack them.
...
The people who approved this, the people who applaud this, they are the ones that we need to note. They are the people others need to know about. Snerdley, you and I need to pick some profitable company out there that offends us. Like Google. That name just bugs me. It just offends me. Google? I'm sure I could find others. We could steal their trademark. I mean, if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

It's not the way to deal with it, I know, but I'm simply making a point.
...
This is not the Patent and Trademark Office. This is Barack Obama. One of the things in reporting out of Washington that has happened during this administration... This is executive branch. All this stuff is coming out of the executive branch. All of this, well, tyranny. It's all coming from the executive branch, and Obama owns the executive branch.

He is the executive branch. But yet it's never reported that way. It's never, "The Obama administration today canceled the trademark ownership and registration the Washington Redskins." No, it's the Patent and Trademark Office -- a nameless, faceless bunch of geeks. Wrong! Barack Obama's administration did this. Barack Obama's administration lied to you about keeping your doctor.

Barack Obama's administration has basically erased the Southern border of the United States and is allowing anybody in. Barack Obama's administration is doing all of this, and they're just now getting up to full speed. It's not the Patent and Trademark Office. That's just the location of the implementation. The thinking, the intellectual firepower, the desire, the instructions, the orders, the power to do this is coming right out of the White House.

Make no mistake about it. IRS? Obama! Not Lois Lerner. She was just the woman that implemented the desires/demands that come from the White House. This is all executive branch stuff, and it's never reported that way. "The IRS today said five rogue agents in Cincinnati," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. No. The White House. The Obama administration. In a sense, this is landmark.

Has a name ever been criminalized before? Have we ever...? I don't know. I'm just asking off the top of my head. So in that sense, it may be landmark. But I told you it's gonna be cheered, and you need to note the people cheering it. Those people deserve to lose their next election, the people cheering this. This is the simple taking of private property rights without any kind of due process whatsoever. Zilch, zero, nada.

It could be any of us that somebody on the left claims to be offended by.
...
We could call ourselves "the Redskins EIB Network." You know, that's actually something these people better think about. Because if they take away the trademark from the Redskins, it means everybody can use it, anybody who wants to. That means it could be everywhere, which I don't think is they want. Actually, you know what? They don't care about that.

They don't care if Redskins is everywhere. This is just a power play to take it way from the team. That's all this is. Think about this now. The Patent and Trademark Office has told the Redskins that they no longer own the trademark. Now, they gotta go through the appeals process and all of that here. But they just unilaterally do it, and there is no constitutional authority for this.

But the Obama administration just today told the Washington Redskins they no longer own the trademark because it's offensive. Now, what that means in practicality reality is that the Redskins don't own it and therefore don't have exclusive rights to it. Anybody can use it, and it would spread like wildfire. You'd have car washes open: "Redskins Car Wash!" You'd have casinos opening up probably called "Redskins Casino," any number of things.

We could call ourselves the EIB Redskins Network. It would be everywhere. And you would think, "Well, that's not what they want. They want the name taken away, 'cause the name's offensive." No, no, no, no, no, no. See, this puts this in perspective. That's not what this is about at all. This is not about the name being offensive. That's just what's stated. Yeah, it might offend a few people, but that's not what this is about.

This is an abject, total power play. This is the administration illustrating what it can do. It simply... Look, Snyder does not donate to Democrat causes. He might a little to even it out, but Snyder is known, if anything, as a Republican, and he does position himself very stubbornly. "I'm never changing this name," he said. "Never." Well, you don't tell a tyrant "never." You don't tell a statist or an authoritarian "never."

You don't tell somebody who thinks he has all the power over everybody "never." So I think this is somewhat personal now, because the end result of this action puts the name "Redskins" everywhere, and you would think that's not what they want. If you really buy into what they're doing, you would think they want to wipe out the name so it's not used by anybody, but this action would result in it everywhere.

So this is nothing more than a classic illustration of who this administration really is. They've targeted an enemy and it happens to be Dan Snyder, and maybe secondarily the NFL. But it's Dan Snyder they're gunning for here, and they're not gonna stop. The Regime is not gonna stop until they make him change that name. It's just flexing of the muscle. This is just pure, raw power on display.

The Regime is telling an owner in the NFL, "Up against me, you are nothing! Up against me, you are powerless. I don't care how long it takes, I'm stripping that name. I don't like it. I don't want you to use it," and that's all this is. This is window dressing, because it doesn't offend a majority of people. I heard it said earlier today by somebody, "Well, what about Fighting Irish?"
...
You certainly don't have a democratic republic in any way, shape, manner, or form.

You can't maintain one when it's as simple as somebody claiming to be offended. Do we want the weak minded to be in charge of everything? Do we want guys who take a leak sitting down to be in charge of everything? Do we? I don't think so. But when you look at it that way, it's clear what this really is, and it isn't about getting rid of the name Redskins -- 'cause if they succeed in this, it's gonna be everywhere. This is just about taking it away from Dan Snyder.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/06/18/obama_regime_strips_redskins_trademark

quote:

RUSH: Vinny in Queens. Vinny, I'm glad you waited. Great to have you, as always. Hi.

CALLER: Dittos, great one. It's always an honor to speak with you.

RUSH: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate that.

CALLER: I need about 60 seconds, Rush, to get it off my chest. I can't tell you how outraged I am. I heard the anger in your voice as soon as you came on the air, and I want you to know that anger was felt by a lot of us. We're one step away from outright confiscation of property -- under a premise of political correctness, safety, equity, you name it -- from this government.

I mean, what's to stop the Department of Transportation from saying, "SUVs have been deemed destructive to the country as a whole. Therefore, we're confiscating them"? I mean, I am so outraged at this whole Washington Redskins thing, but I'm even more outraged over a GOP that's unwilling to do anything -- and I do believe something can be done. I don't see why the head of the patent office cannot be called down.

Get him before a committee like Darrell Issa's committee and put him on the spot and have congressmen demand to know, "By whose authority do you think you can take away a private citizen's right of property? Who the hell made you God? Take away an entire team's right of property? Who gave you this authority, sir?" I don't know if I'm madder at Obama -- 'cause you're right, this comes from Obama -- or if I'm madder at my political party for sitting mute while every day my rights are stripped from me one by one.

RUSH: Well, "your political party," just to explain again -- and I'm sure, 'cause you're here every day, you've heard me read excerpts from... Beinart. Whatever his first name is, his piece on what the Republicans better learn real fast if they ever want to win. Peter Beinart. Yeah. His piece, Vinny, basically said that there are demographic changes happening in this country that are transforming the country into one of "social justice" and "tolerance."

That means that minorities of any stripe are now empowered, and if the Republicans don't get in gear with this -- and if the Republican base continues to oppose this -- they're just gonna make it happen even faster. I'm convinced the Republicans in Washington buy into that. I think they would look at this Redskins thing and be saying, "Oh, my God!"

"We can't go after that. I mean, they'll call us racists, and they'll say that we're in favor of racism and that we want to discriminate against the Indians." That's how they're, I think, paralyzed. I think the left has executed a number of tricks on 'em and they're literally paralyzed. They're afraid they're gonna lose elections or get negative media coverage if they speak out on this.

CALLER: Well, two answers to that -- or one answer, at least. Better to die on my feet than on my knees, and if wanting a team to be called the Washington Redskins makes me racist, then I guess, by God, I am racist. How ridiculous. The reason this is perpetuated like this is because we fall prey to it, okay? There's nothing more racist about being called a Washington Redskins than the very town I'm calling from.

This is Maspeth, Queens, which happens to be an Indian name. Now, the ridiculousness of this in one way, shape, manner or form or another has gotta run its course. I just think it's a crying shame that in my lifetime, I'm seeing what's happening to this country. It is hard for me. It is hard for me to see what's going on before my eyes and feel powerless to do nothing.

RUSH: I know. I totally agree with you about the lack of push-back. There's only one party in Washington, Vinny. It's the Party of Power. It's got members from the Democrats and the Republicans and the Libertarians and the Socialists, the Marxists, you name it. It's the Power of Power. But I think that Peter Beinart piece -- and he's not the first guy to say it. It's just the way it was written, pointing out, "Look, the only thing standing in the way of the left totally dominating this country with their new agenda of social justice and tolerance..." and you know what that means, don't you?

CALLER: Sure. Of course.

RUSH: I mean, you know that the only thing standing between that becoming the majority viewpoint and governing body and what have you, is the Tea Party, is the Republican base. Beinart says if the Republican base continues to oppose this, they're just gonna anger people even more and hasten this demographic shift.

The point is the Republican leadership, I think, has bought that. What else would explain their open support for amnesty? They must believe what the Democrats are telling them, and whoever it is telling them, that they're never gonna win another election if they don't get some Hispanic votes. The way to get Hispanic votes in Washington is to stand for amnesty. It's absurd, but they obviously believe it.
...
The Redskins own the trademark, and it was granted them by this very Patent and Trademark Office. Now they just unilaterally, because of essentially five people, said, "You know what? You're offending people, offending political correctness. You can't use it anymore. We take it away." You're right. That kind of power, in our Constitution, does not exist. But this is my point when I say that the Obama presidency is just now getting started, and it's outrageous. I'm like you. I try to come up with a way to describe my outrage, and I fall short of anything. Vinny, thanks for the call. I appreciate it.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/06/18/outrageous_is_the_only_word_to_describe_what_s_happening_to_our_country

quote:

RUSH: Here is John in Orange, New Jersey. You're next. It's great to have you on the program. Hi.

CALLER: Rush, an absolute pleasure, my friend. Thank you for taking the call.

RUSH: You bet, sir.

CALLER: Hey, just two quick points and I'll let you go. I know you have a legion of fans dying to get through to you. First off, this is the left's actual second bite of the apple in trying to take the Redskin name away. Back in 1999 the patent office issued the exact same ruling and it was later overturned after the Redskins appealed it. So this is their second bite at the apple. And this shouldn't surprise anyone that they're doing this.

The second point is, you know, it's ironic that Michelle Obama and Barack Obama often talk about anti-bullying campaigns, where what you're seeing here is the epitome of the bully pulpit. I mean, who tried to bully Israel? Obama. Who tried to bully BP in the Gulf oil spill? Obama. Who is trying to bully the coal industry now? Obama. Who is trying to bully fishermen in the Pacific Ocean? Obama. And who's now trying to bully the Redskins to change their name? Obama.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: That's what a bully is.

RUSH: Obama is.

CALLER: And as you said before, he doesn't have to face the public again. He can care less what anybody thinks.

RUSH: Exactly. Exactly. In fact, I'll tell you, my honest take is that these are great times for Obama. He's finally where he wants to be. He is free to go full bore into it now. He doesn't have to pretend. He doesn't have to say things that mask who he is. He can go out and do whatever he wants. He knows full well nobody's gonna stop him. These are great times. It's just that the media is gonna have to pretend otherwise for public consumption. Gonna have to pretend, "Oh, it's looking really bad for Obama, oh, the poll numbers, the bottom is falling out, oh, imploding and so forth." But these are great times for Obama. Six years and he's finally where he wants to be.

Let me grab sound bite number six. I may have to do this again, but I'm gonna give you a taste of what I'm talking about here with just full bore into what he wants to do without any concern. This, I don't think, would have happened four years ago. This is last night in New York City, Gotham Hall. It's a Democrat lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender fundraiser.

OBAMA: That's the story of this movement. People who stand up and come out and march and organize and fight to expand the rights we enjoy and extend them to other people. People who work against the odds, to build a nation in which nobody's a second-class citizen. Everybody's free to be who they are. That's the fight that brought all of us here today. That's what made it possible for me to stand up here as your president.

RUSH: Okay. There's another bite that comes. I don't have time to get it in here now, but it's coming. In the first bite he's setting himself up and his supporters up as the people fighting to bring justice to this mean, unfair, unjust, racist, bigoted, homophobic country. It's what Beinart was talking about. Here we have the rise of the demographic shift where social justice and tolerance are the definitions of the new America. This is clearly not mainstream, and he's trying to mainstream it. I don't care what he thinks, this is not where the country is right now. We may be headed there. We haven't gotten there yet.

Here's the second sound bite. This is Obama at the LGBT -- lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender-- fundraiser at Gotham Hall, in New York City last night.

OBAMA: This community should be fighting for workers who aren't getting paid a minimum wage that's high enough. That's why this community has to show compassion for the illegal immigrant who is contributing to our society and just wants a chance to move out of the shadows. That's why this community should be concerned about equal pay for equal work, straight or gay. That's why this community has to be concerned about the remaining vestiges of racial discrimination. If you've experienced bein' on the outside, you gotta be one to bring more folks in, even once you are inside.

RUSH: (sigh) Look, I have to be very judicious here in the way I comment on this, because it is clear what Obama's doing, and I refer you back again to that piece by Peter Beinart where this country is undergoing a major transformation where those who demand "tolerance" and "social justice" are going to rule the roost. They're gonna run the country. "It ain't gonna be you old white guys anymore.

"It ain't gonna be you powerful rich guys anymore. It's gonna be all of us that you've squished and stepped on and laughed at and made fun of! Well, we're coming for you now, dude, and we're gonna get you!" Obama's applauding this and urging them on. So in the first sound bite (I'm not gonna bother playing it again), he sets him and his supporters up as the people who are fighting to bring social justice to this mean, racist, unfair, unjust, immoral, bigoted country.

And then as he scoops up all the money at this fundraiser -- don't forget, he's scooping up all the money they're donating to be there -- he then lectures them that now that they're on the inside like he is, they've gotta give even more. That's what that whole sound bite meant. When he says (impression), "If you've experienced being on the outside, you gotta be one to bring more folks in even once you are inside," that means you've got to go out and find even more money.

You have to donate more and you have to fund-raise more. It reminds me of Marion Barry at the Democrat convention. He was the mayor of Washington at the time. It was the Democrat convention, San Francisco, 1984. Was it '84? Yeah. (muttering) It was '84.

He's up there speaking and David Brinkley is doing commentary for ABC, clearly embarrassed. Marion Barry is just all over the place, and David Brinkley is deadpanning, "This is my mayor." Marion Barry's whole theme is, "Tonight, tonight we on the inside. Tonight, tonight we on the inside." So here's Obama talking about you've experienced being on the outside. Meaning if you've experienced being laughed at and squished and stomped on and made fun of and discriminated against and blah, blah. Now that you're on the inside, because I'm here for you, you gotta donate even more.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here is Peg, Coppers Cove, Texas. Welcome to the program. Hi.

CALLER: Hi there. Thanks so much for taking my call, Rush.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I want to thank you so much also for your books, especially the one Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims that my grandchildren absolutely love. Thank you very much.

RUSH: You are welcome and thank you so much.

CALLER: I'm calling because, first of all, I am a vet. I'm also Irish, and I'm also American Indian. And those topics sort of came up today. I was like, okay, I don't have a problem with whatever anybody wants to call their football team. For Pete's sake, what kind of political correctness are we really getting into here? It's stupid.

RUSH: Well, we're way beyond political correctness now.

CALLER: That's true. That's unfortunate. But I'm calling because I was thinking about the VA scandal, being a vet, and 50% of my husband and our family were vets. We're all kind of concerned about that. I had a brother who actually asked about going to another doctor and they said, "At your expense." So they're not really paying for them to go to other doctors, and then the IRS. The IRS is supposed to be in charge of Obamacare and how it's distributed. And if they're doing all these e-mails and targeting certain people --

RUSH: Stop and think. You know, you've helped me focus on something here. We just heard Obama out once again with the God-like reverb Monday night at the lesbian, gay -- it sounded like a campaign appearance if you listen to that sound bite. And he's talking about all the discrimination and the racism and the mistreatment of these people, while the VA scandal rages under his watch, while veterans are dying because of the mess the VA has become. And Iraq falling apart. And there he is making it out like lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people are the biggest victims of an unfair country. It's unreal.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/06/18/these_are_great_times_for_barack_obama

quote:

RUSH: We've arrested one of the perpetrators of the attack on the consulate in Benghazi. And now that we've done that -- you know this guy's gonna get a lawyer. He's gonna get a Regime lawyer. He's gonna get an Obama donor lawyer.

And let me ask you a question. If the trial ever happens, let me ask you, Mr. Snerdley, do you think that an Obama administration prosecutor will aggressively try to prove the video was a phony excuse used by Obama to win an election? No way, right? No way whatsoever. The government itself prosecuting the guy will not say that the video was a trumped up excuse.

This terrorist SOB, I can guarantee you, is gonna say that the president and the secretary of state and Susan Rice were all right, that the video was despicable and it was an offense against Islam and it's what made us all mad, it's why we did it, and that's gonna come out in the trial. Mark my words. He's gonna say he was just defending his religion of peace. He might even say the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet. Well, Obama said that, Cairo speech, have you forgotten that? Obama said the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. He said one of the greatest sounds he's ever heard is the call to morning prayer.

So this guy, here's a picture. He looks like Justin Bieber a little bit, with a beard. This guy has a built-in defense. "The president, the secretary of state, Susan Rice, I saw those Sunday shows. They're exactly right, that video, I can't tell you how it ticked us all off. We were talking about it that morning. That video made us so mad." And then right there on the witness stand he said the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. We got this one guy right now, isn't it amazing, we got this one guy, the media found this guy a year ago. CNN, the New York Times did interviews with the guy, knowing what he was, knowing that he was one of the perps, a year ago.
...
I don't want to break the train of thought that we're on here with the Benghazi perpetrator having been caught and arrested.

I was thinking about Tommy Vietor who was on Fox with Bret Baier not long ago and Bret Baier kept asking about Benghazi. (imitating Vietor) "It's two years ago, dude." Remember that? Okay, so they arrest this guy, "So what? It was two years ago, dude." But there's more to this, folks. I want to read you some quotes from this guy that he gave the media in various reports. His name is Khatallah, by the way. And my point is, when you hear these quotes you're gonna hear somebody who sounds remarkably aligned with Obama.

You remember during the 2008 and 2012 campaign I kept saying it's remarkable how much Ahmadinejad sounds like your everyday Democrat today campaigning against Republicans and the country? Well, try this. In the 2012 New York Times article, the Benghazi suspect accused the leaders of the United States of, quote, "playing with the emotions of the American people," and, quote, "using the consulate attack just to gather votes for their elections." It sounds just like what Obama said that the Republicans were doing.

And then he said, "Why is the United States always trying to impose its ideology on everybody else? Why is the United States always trying to use force to implement its agendas?" Now, forgive me, folks, but that sounds exactly like the way Democrats look at this country. I've been following these people for 25 years, and they refer to us as imposing our will on foreign countries. And the thing is, I've never looked at freedom as an imposition, which is what we do. We liberate people. We bring them freedom. And this guy, "Why is the United States always trying to impose its ideology? Why is it always trying to use force to implement its agenda?"

I mean, I can hear Harry Reid. I can hear Tom Daschle. I can hear Tom Foley, any number of Democrats my whole life sounding the same way. And then Khatallah also said, "Contradicting the accounts of many witnesses and the most recent account of the Obama administration, he contended that the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam."

I knew it. I didn't see this before yesterday when I made this prediction. Actually, it's not a prediction because turns out he had already said it and had been on record saying it. But I didn't know that, I swear to you, or I would have said so yesterday. But in 2012 in this interview with the New York Times he contended the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the US. Sounds just like Obama. Sound just like Hillary. But at least now we know why Obama thought it would be safe to capture the guy. 'Cause this guy's gonna give the White House version of events. This guy is going to give, via testimony, the Susan Rice version of events. A video made him and his friends mad, and offended them, and that's why they did it.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/06/18/benghazi_perp_set_up_to_blame_video
I guess he's admitting that he doesn't actually read any of the poo poo he prints out and goes over during his show prep :shrug:

I saved the funniest bit for last

quote:

RUSH: The NBC News/Washington Post poll. It is indeed very bad for Obama, but it's irrelevant. The poll means nothing to Obama. His presidency is not over. It's just getting started. I say this because Obama is operating unilaterally. He doesn't have to face voters anymore. The lame duck analogy doesn't apply to Obama. Mostly when a president reaches lame duck status, it's usually meant to be that he's powerless.

But that doesn't apply here to Obama. His lame duck status simply means: The fact that he doesn't have to face the voters anymore means there's no reason to hide. There is no reason to camouflage. There's no reason anymore to pretend to be something that he's not. So now he's operating as he is. He is unilaterally behaving. He is not facing the electorate anymore.

He doesn't have to worry about losing an election, and therefore pandering to the electorate. He's dismissed Congress. They don't exist -- and they never have, really. So how is it "over"? You know, this is a complete disconnect between popular opinion and his conduct. I think this is really key, folks. There's a complete disconnect. Popular opinion doesn't matter, and yet to the media popular opinion is everything, and they don't get this.

That's why they're not reading it correctly. It's why they don't understand... I was gonna say, they don't know who Obama is. And in some ways, they may not. In other ways they may be applauding all of it. But it ain't over. This huge disconnect between popular opinion and his conduct is, I think, a very important key. Now, there's news in this poll that hit me much the way exit polling did in 2012.

I got the first wave a five o'clock. I told you that when I saw the answers to two questions, I knew the election was over. One of the questions was, "Cares about people like me: Obama 89% to 11% over Romney," and then I saw that something like "60% still blame Bush for the economy." I said, "All right, well, this election's in the tank. It's gone." The innards of this poll are the same.

For example: "After the Obama administration announced new Environmental Protection Agency regulations," meaning the 30% reduction of carbon emissions to wipe out the coal industry, 57% of the people in this poll say they approve of that. "Fifty-seven percent approve of a proposal that would require companies to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming by 30%." (sigh)

I don't care what it says about Obama. That's upsetting. "A combined 61% believe that climate change requires either immediate action to combat it or some action. By contrast, 37% say that the country doesn't know enough about it or that it's unwarranted. Now, this is confusing. This is the first poll I've seen in a long time where there is a majority of people believing in global warming. Most of the polls on global warming show you that most people don't even care about it.

So there are some things to be suspicious of here.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/06/18/disturbing_elements_in_the_nbc_wsj_poll
Looks like he's been avoiding public opinion on climate change since 2009 at least. Sounds about right.

# ? Jun 18, 2014 22:30

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

«‹›3442 »