|
4/4 |
2007/10/12-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48302 Activity:high |
10/12 Awesome. http://csua.org/u/jq0 (ebay auction of... oh, who cares, it's partisan crap disguised as a short url. Op, did you happen to see your dignity on auction while you were there?) \_ Actually it's about accuracy, and Reid's inability to find it with both hands. \_ Actually, it is about Rush Limbaugh's attempt to rewrite history, something he does all the time. Where are his transcripts of him calling Chelsea Clinton the "White House Dog?" http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010 See where he calls them "phony soldiers." \_ Yeah, http://mm.org has been arguing against the truth for quite a while. Limbaugh clearly was talking about actual phony soldiers. See "Operation Stolen Valor". Limbaugh went on to talk about McBride and others like him. talk about Macbeth and others like him. \_ I heard it live, in context. He was clearly not turning his back on 20+ years of pro-military rhetoric. Reid and http://mm.org got it wrong. The only way they could get it so wrong was by intentionally ignoring the facts. Rush is an amusing entertainer and not worthy of this sort of waste of time on the Senate floor nor a ridiculous witch hunt. Especially since he's said plenty of other things worth attacking that he's actually said. \_ Another "phony soldier" no doubt: http://www.csua.org/u/jq2 Rush only calls you a phony if you don't support Bush's war. \_ If you ever actually listened to Rush you'd know he's said many times that he has no problem with real soldiers being critical of the war. Just the fakes and frauds like the guy he was talking about that day who flunked out of basic but falsely claimed to be a US Army ranger who committed and witnessed numerous atrocities. You're tossing a red herring. Reid is a liar. Media Matters (a Hillary created front org) are liars. The other 40 Senators who signed his stupid letter are liars. If you want to bash Bush or the war, go ahead, but that has nothing to do with Reid, Hillary, and the rest flat out lying about what Rush said and wasting Senate time attacking a US citizen's first amendment rights. Have a nice day. \_ First off, what proof do you have that the first caller was a phony soldier, which is what Rush clearly called him? Secondly, Media Matters is hardly a Hillary created front org, it was founded by David Brock, someone I personally know from my time at Wired Magazine and it is funded by Soros. As usual, you are either confused or spreading misinformation. Soros. As usual, you are spreading misinformation. \_ The first caller was a phony soldier? What are you talking about? I don't think you know. Secondly, Brock is a Hillary minion. Your knowing him personally has nothing to do with anything. Of coruse Hillary didn't fund it herself. No one said she did. Sheesh. Either way, Reid and MM are still liars. All this other stuff is nonsense. \_ Brock is hardly a Hillary minion, unless you really believe that everyone to the left of Mitt Romney is part of a vast Hillary conspiracy. If anything, he is a Soros minion, since Soros writes his paycheck. And Soros is quite a long way from Hillary, believe me. \_ You failed to answer about the first part about "first caller was a phony soldier". You don't know anything about this story. You're just a troll. The rest of your post is nonsense. \_ In a simple reading of what Rush said, it is quite clear that he referred to the first caller as a phony soldier, yes. Your English language skills are deficient. You also don't know what the word "troll" means. Hint, it does not mean "anyone who disagrees with me." \_ sorry, I was listening to the show, not a cut up transcript. He was clearly not referring to the caller. The rest of your ad hominem is not worth replying to since it is based on your complete lack of knowledge of the situation. \_ Calling someone a troll is fine, but saying "you don't know what a troll is" is ad hominem? You don't know what ad hominem means either. \_ To both of you: Please show evidence that Soros or Hillary in any way financially supports MM. "Drudge says so" is not evidence. \_ Sorry, I mistakenly thought this was common knowledge. It is pretty funny to watch the Right foam at the mouth over MM. They have been doing the same stuff for years, but they get seriously paranoid and nutty when anyone gives them a dose of their own medicine. Where does MM get its funding? \_ "common knowledge" to who? Ditto- heads? Answer your own question then come back and show us your results. \_ I've donated to them. \_ I've wasted money on stuff before, too. \_ Well, they seem to get you all hot and bothered, so it wasn't a total waste, now was it? \_ *laugh* the first troll who is paying others to do it for them. You've taken the Art Of Troll to a whole new level. Keep sending money. Wow, you're dumb. \_ Do you really think that this is the *first* troll to ever do that? What do you think of Horowitz and FrontPage Mag? \_ I don't donate to Horowitz or FPM or MM or any other troll orgs. Why would you? \_ You are begging the question. Is MM the *first*? \_ Of course it isn't but that is a side show. Who cares which was first? I don't and have never donated to any of them. Why would anyone donate to orgs who by their very nature are designed to lie and created with that purpose in mind? Maybe that's your thing but I'll send my charity to places that try to do good in the world. \_ Surprisingly enough, not everyone agrees with what your definition of "do good in the world" means. \_ I'm sad anyone takes Rush seriously, ever, or pays any attention to him. \_ Talk to Reid about that, wasting time in the Senate on an entertainer. \_ ugh debating anything Rush spews is stupid. http://MM.org is a Soros creation, not hillary. \_ From Rush to Drudge... Can't you people factcheck anything? The zombie lies will never die... \_ Hillary herself said she helped create http://MM.org. Here is the article, with a download of the audio of her saying it. http://csua.org/u/jqa \_ First off, this is not really what she said there, if you pay attention carefully to the wording. She said she supports it, which can mean practically anything. Secondly, do you honesly believe every lie that a politician tells you? Did you believe Dubya when he told you that Saddam had WMD and a Nuclear program? Did you believe Gore when he told you that he invented the Internet? The actual founder of MM is famous for having written various anti-Clinton pieces, including the Troopergate story (which was later exposed as a lie, which was part of what led to Brock's "conversion"). \_ So we have to carefully parse her words to figure out wtf she's talking about? Does she know what the meaning of "is" is or was the previously resolved in court? Sheesh. \_ Politicians say bland, impenetrable things all the time, deliberately using the ambiguity inherent in language to tell the greatest number of listeners what they think they want to hear, without actually saying anything. Hillary is just better at it than most. \_ I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "it" is. I prefer leaders, of which we have a few, over your politicians. Saying she is a politician and there- fore it is ok for her to dissemble is not ok. You might as well vote for Bush. \_ I think it is obvious that I am no big fan of Hillary either, but I don't see any of these "leaders" running for President, from either party. You might be able to convince me otherwise with regards to McCain. Anyone else even remotely close? \_ Among the 'top candidates' as chosen by the media, no, not really. There are others running we barely hear from. Maybe there. \_ Who? \_ Ron Paul, Huckabee, Dodd, and Gravel come to mind. Hillary is an evil clown, Obama is a clown, Rudy is evil, Edwards is a fraudster, Romney will say anything. I miss anyone at the top? \_ Huckabee talks out both sides of his mouth with regards to taxes, Dodd is bought at paid for by Wall Street, but bought and paid for by Wall Street, but perhaps the other two are all right. I don't know much about them except what I saw on the debate. They are both obviously willing to take upopular stances openly, so you have to respect that. \_ ObBitchSlap: Gore never said he invented the Internet. \_ Created vs invented \_ "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator." -Vincent Cerf \_ Because it behooves him to embarass the VP by saying anything else? \_ Because it's true. \_ So you say. What exactly did Gore do without which we wouldn't have google today? \_ High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 which led to the National Information Infrastructure. Learn the history of your field, young Computer Scientist. \_ 'If it had been left to private industry, it wouldn't have happened,' Andreessen says of Gore's bill, 'at least, not until years later.'. So, without Gore, we would be just like now but circa 2002? With google, yahoo, web mail, browsers, etc, but no web 2.0 ajax outside of MS web outlook? How is that different? You know the net existed then right? So he did something that eventually funded the browser a year later? It sounds like the browser was already on it's way. I'm not buying it, sorry. \_ this is one of the dumbest trolls I've ever seen. -tom \_ why do you still post here? \_ Heh, w/o CCA and NII, we'd be just like ten years ago, but with BBSs. OTOH, we'd probably have kickass analog modems. \_ Hint: there was an internet before 1991. \_ Yes, and Usenet, and other such, and you had to have access through a school or large company to get to it. W/o public investment in expanding access, you'd still have to have an OCF account to read your email. \_ And as Andreesen said, we'd be a few years behind. Call it five. That puts us at 2002 which isn't a whole lot different than today. Or maybe you're smarter than he is. We all know that without government nothing ever gets invented. Government is the source of all creativity and invention. *boggle!* \_ you're an idiot. \_ Andreesen said "years later": that could mean decades. Also, if not for gov. invest. there'd've been no .com bubble and no commesurate boost in private spending in infrastructure. Prog. w/o profit is slooow. \_ the dotcom bubble was a good thing? ok whatever. \_ It led to near- ubiquity of the Internet. I'd say that's more good than bad. \_ I'd say it didn't. I'd say more computers in more homes did that. \_ The proto-Internet was ARPAnet, run by the DOD, and the DOD decided it was no longer going to provide support for civilian applications. If the Internet did not receive funding at that point in time, maybe telecoms would have done something, but it would have been done based on the telecom model; fee for service, screw net neutrality. The government is the *only* entity which could have created the Internet as the public resource we know today. -tom \_ fee for service got you... here it comes.... SERVICE! What a shocker! imagine having a business model where you have to pay to get stuff! Dreadful! \_ What are you, a Free Market troll, a ditto- head troll, or a bridge-troll? \_ Anyone who disagrees with you must be a troll. You are the source of all truth. \_ Man, took you long enough. \_ Do you think the Internet would be better if it worked more like cell phone networks? -tom \_ For some definitions of 'better', yes. If I could pay $5/m to not get spam I would save money, for ex. The telcos would sell you "spam _/ blocking service" and then sell the spammers "spam delivery guarantee service" to get around the spam blocking. You'd have to buy a specific computer to connect to AT+T's network and it wouldn't work if you wanted to switch to Sprint, and you'd have a two year contract with a penalty clause. You'd also have a surcharge to send mail to an off-network customer, or it just wouldn't work at all. The "cheap" connectivity plan would involve huge fees for any time you actually used the service, and then they'd advertise "Tired of high fees? Buy our unlimited plan for twice as much money!" Net neutrality and ubiquitous deployment is a huge public benefit, and it could only have happend through government action, and Gore deserves a lot of credit for initiating that action. -tom \_ You mean like how I can use my cell phone right now to call anyone and it doesn't cost me anything during nights and weekends and during the day the rate is dirt cheap, I don't get spam calls, I have a choice of hundreds of phones, and all this was brought to me by pure raw capitalist competition for my hard earned dollar. Yeah, the phone system sure sucks. If it was run by the government I wouldn't have a cell phone, unless I was a Senator or someone else 'important' who gets a special health plan much different than what the proles get. No thanks. I'll pass on the socialist utopia phone system monopoly. I'm old enough to remember Ma Bell being the only game in town. A government monopoly on the phones would be no better. Competition rules. \_ Uhh, you do realize that without the government heavily regulating large chunks of the phone industry your wonderful cell phone network would be a disaster, don't you? \_ The actual quote was "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." which Declan (another Wired Alum) twisted into invented. \_ Hence "Created vs invented" as I said above. \_ Brock is hardly a Hillary minion, unless |
4/4 |
|
csua.org/u/jq0 -> cgi.ebay.com/Original-Harry-Reid-Rush-Limbaugh-Smear-Letter_W0QQitemZ260170172469QQihZ016QQcategoryZ4105QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem ka Jesse MacBeth) and other "phony soldiers" who falsify their service. This letter was delivered to Mark Mays of Clear Channel Communications, Rush Limbaugh's syndication partner, and widely quoted in the Drive-By Media. Up for auction is the original letter signed by 41 Democrat senators. This historic document may well represent the first time in the history of America that this large a group of US senators attempted to demonize a private citizen by lying about his views. As such, it is a priceless memento of the folly of Harry Reid and his 40 senatorial co-signers. will be donated to The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation, a registered charity which provides financial assistance to the children of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement officers. Rush Limbaugh serves on the Board of this organization and has been active on its behalf. every dollar of your winning bid will go to this charity, which has to date distributed over $29 million. Rush first publicly displayed this letter on the night of October 11th during a speech in Philadelphia, having a security operative carry it on stage, with the letter itself safely encased in a Halliburton Attache case handcuffed to the agent's right wrist. Included in this auction is that same Halliburton briefcase, as well as a personal letter from Rush Limbaugh, thanking the winning bidder for his donation. The special handcuffs may not be distributed outside of law enforcement and security officers, and thus are not included in this auction. As winning bidder, you get: - The original and infamous "Harry Reid Smear" letter, signed by 41 Democat senators - The Halliburton briefcase in which this letter is secured 24 hours a day - A personal letter of thanks from the Man Who Runs America, Rush Limbaugh - A photograph of Rush displaying the letter on stage in Philadelphia on October 11th Who Signed? ABOUT RUSH LIMBAUGH AND HIS RADIO SHOW: The Rush Limbaugh Show is the most listened to radio talk show in America, broadcast on about 600 radio stations nationwide. It is hosted by America's Anchorman, Rush Limbaugh, also known as: America's Truth Detector; the All-Knowing, All-Sensing, All-Everything Maha Rushie; defender of motherhood, protector of fatherhood and an all-around good guy. com FOR CHARITY: The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation encourages the spiritual, moral and intellectual development of children through education. The Foundation was formed in February 1995, by former Marines and law enforcement personnel who strongly believe that our nation's most precious resource is its youth. TERMS AND CONDITIONS A bid is a legally binding contract. This is for a charitable purpose -- do not bid if you are not 100% certain you can follow through with payment at the winning bid price and within the time frame allotted. All bids and sales are final, so please verify your bid amount before placing it. Bidders who retract bids and then bid again may have their bids removed and may be blocked from participating in the auction. We reserve the right to reject any bids, especially from users with a history of negative feedback. We also reserve the right to screen and reject bidders using reasonable discretion. Non paying bidders may be subject to collection and legal costs. By bidding in this auction, the bidder understands and agrees to eBay's terms of service as well as all terms and conditions mentioned here. For bids over $15,000, a valid credit card registered in the name of the account owner must be on file at eBay. The card will not be charged unless such bid is the highest bidder and then only upon completion of the winning bid price verification. In certain cases, we may request a deposit before allowing a bidder to become qualified to place a bid. In such circumstances, the deposit will be refunded if said bidder is not the winning bidder upon the auction's close. PAYMENT Payment is required within business days of the auction close. Failure to deliver payment within the designated time will result in default of the bid and we may select the next highest bidder. Acceptable payment options include PayPal, money order, bank check, certified check, cashier check, or bank-to-bank wire transfer. If paying by PayPal, we only ship to confirmed PayPal addresses. SHIPPING FREE SHIPPING TAX INFORMATION Payment of the winning bid made through this auction may be tax deductible. Consult with your tax advisor for more information, as we do not provide tax consulting. CUSTOMER SERVICE If you have any questions about this auction not addressed here, contact us by using the "ask seller a question" link at the top of the page. Customer service is available 7 days a week during the auction event. Shipping and Handling To Service FREE United States Standard Flat Rate Shipping Service Shipping insurance Not offered Return policy Return policy not specified. Read item description for any reference to return policy. |
mediamatters.org/items/200709270010 t's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people." "Mike" from Olympia replied, "No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media." The caller, who had earlier said, "I am a serving American military, in the Army," agreed, replying, "The phony soldiers." published an op-ed by seven members of the US Army 82nd Airborne Division. They ended their assessment of the situation in Iraq with the following passage: In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food." In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal. Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through. sided with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that President Bush's escalation in Iraq was against "the national interest." said: "I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose." documented, on the August 2, 2005, program, Limbaugh repeatedly referred to Iraq war veteran and then-Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett as "another liberal Democrat trying to hide behind a military uniform" and accused him of going to Iraq "to pad the resum." On the day of Limbaugh's comments, Hackett narrowly lost a special election to Republican Jean Schmidt for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District seat. From the September 26 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of -- who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement? CALLER 1: I'm just -- I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public -- like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but -- LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! I uttered a truth, and you can't handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically. CALLER 1: Well, I am a Republican, and I've listened to you for a long time, and you're right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. And I'm not a Democrat, but I just -- sometimes you've got to cut the losses. LIMBAUGH: Well, you -- you -- CALLER 1: I mean, sometimes you really gotta know when you're wrong. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, flying out of there, waving the white flag. I'm not saying anything like that, but, you know -- LIMBAUGH: Well, of course you are. LIMBAUGH: Bill, the truth is -- the truth is the truth, Mike. CALLER 1: How long is it gonna -- how long do you think we're going to have to be there for them to take care of that? LIMBAUGH: Mike -- CALLER 1: How long -- you know -- what is it? LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are -- CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican. LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, 'cause you sound just like a Democrat. CALLER 1: No, but -- LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question -- CALLER 1: -- seriously, how long do we have to stay there -- LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously. CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever -- LIMBAUGH: I -- it won't -- CALLER 1: -- because that's what it'll take. CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take. That's not what you want to hear, so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up. LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. CALLER 2: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And -- LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home." CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what -- LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people. CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country. They joined -- CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah. LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere. Next * So Limbaugh is allowed to dismiss the service of our men and women who disagree with the war but moveon is not allowed to dismiss the service of a certain general who uses his position's credibility as a tool for the President. Flag this comment + Soldiers who speak out agains the war would include the ones who wrote an op-ed in the NY Times just a few days before two of them were killed while defending our country. I'm angry at the vile Limbaugh, and God forgive the right winger who replies to this comment by, once again, trying to explain what Rush meant to say. crooks and liars has posted info to request the senate to apply Cornyn's resolution to Limbaugh. That phony resolution covered all of the armed services, so let's flood their boxes with requests to apply it fairly and find out if they have the balls to do that. Flag this comment o Wow - Lotsa venom in this one - especially for something taken out of context. The article is nicely cut-and-spliced - When Rush mentioned "phony soldiers" - he was specifically addressing Jesse Macbeth. html Takes on a different meaning when all is read - doesn't it? He was referring to a soldier who was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Dept of Vet Affairs claim and Army discharge record. He never won the Purple Heart, never in comba... |
www.csua.org/u/jq2 -> news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/sanchez_iraq_3;_ylt=AkeMerHyUKaesQyIDQ7gLUoL1vAI WnmfDxJJQAUewgF/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1192263346/A=4919452/R=0/* Retired Lt. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition troops for a year beginning June 2003, cast a wide net of blame for both political and military shortcomings in Iraq that helped open the way for the insurgency -- such as disbanding the Saddam-era military and failing to cement ties with tribal leaders and quickly establish civilian government after Saddam was toppled. He called current strategies -- including the deployment of 30,000 additional forces earlier this year -- a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of misguided policies in Iraq. "There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," Sanchez told a group of journalists covering military affairs. Sanchez avoided pointing his criticism at any single official or agency, but it appeared a broad indictment of White House policies and a lack of leadership in the Pentagon to oppose them. Such assessments -- even by former Pentagon brass -- are not new, but they have added resonance as debates over war strategy dominate the presidential campaign. Sanchez went on to offer a pessimistic view on the current US strategy against extremists will make lasting gains, but said a full-scale withdrawal also was not an option. "The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training US generals. Ricardo Sanchez, the US military commander in Iraq is shown in this 2003 file photo in Baghdad. Sanchez said the US mission in Iraq is a 'nightmare with no end in sight' because of political misjudgments after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. |
csua.org/u/jqa -> newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/01/hillary-clinton-told-yearlykos-convention-she-helped-start-media-matt reported Sunday, the leftwing organization responsible for the recent smear campaigns against Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, Media Matters, has direct ties to the Clintons. To be sure, folks on the left, and in the media that support them, will either deny this connection, or ignore it. In the end, that's going to be hard to do, for on August 4, while speaking at the YearlyKos convention in Chicago, the junior senator from New York boasted of "institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress." We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely, and really putting together a network, uh, in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress. Sounds like the junior senator confirmed my contention from Sunday: "Hillary and her backers have created an advocacy network whose expressed goal is to take down all of her critics in the media. She continued: You know, we're beginning to match what I had said for years was the advantage of the other side. Uh, you know, when I made that comment about the vast right-wing conspiracy, I wasn't kidding. Uh, what I never could have predicted is that it was not a conspiracy, it was just wide open and out there for everybody to see. Well, Senator, it now appears that the advocacy network you "helped to start and support" is wide open and out there for everybody to see. In yet another instance of Media Matters making false claims, the left-wing group has issued several denials that it is tied to Hillary and Bill Clinton. But in true Clintonian fashion, these denials are hardly that at all. referenced it in subsequent articles as a denial of a Clinton connection. Apparently Media Matters can't even quote itself in context! We can't help but wonder how the group tries to spin and distort this flat-out statement of involvement from Clinton. drillanwr She won't have to deny it, of course, when the fallout from this starts "radiating" ... The neoPRAVDA will completely bury or ignore it for her royal commie. It is a more expensive, slicker, but just as ruthless adaptation of her bimbo squad. Hillary will make Richard Nixon look meek by comparison. "She is the most ruthless bitch I have ever seen " according to one of her former law partners. The Clintons totally ruthless quest for power has almost destroyed this country. Dave R I hate to say it yet again, but barring some unforseen calamity, the Hildewench will be the next President of the United States. At this point, all the head-up-their-ass republicans can do is to try and prevent her from having a dim-controlled congress. Given the rampant incompetence of the current leadership of said party, I seriously doubt they will manage to prevent even that. RJ CNN ran a segment today asking if Hillary had peaked too soon? They followed the question with a number of examples of Democrat backlash against her "inevitability." And last Saturday, SNL did a scathingly funny opening segment on the same subject. Dave R Look, you guys know I respect the hell out of both of you, but I have to call this as I see it. No one else in the dim establishment has the clout (or the gonads) to go up against the Clinton Machine. Not Obama, not Richardson, not even Al Gore-who, IMHO, is scared to death of them-else he would be running against her even now. Even if Hsu is sitting in the offices of the FBI and singing like Tweety-bird, it will not matter. As I see it, the Clinton's compromised the integrity of the FBI over two decades ago. Let's face it, even if Hsu were to produce verifiable video of HRC personally putting a bullet into the head of Vince Foster, I doubt anything would come of it. Does anyone here at NB really think that Craig Livingstone simply walked out of the FBI offices with all those files without someone's blessing way up high in the FBI chain of command? Airforce_5_O If a good strong Repub we will be singing "Hail to the B***H" by 09. I Think you are throwing in the Towel a little soon here. The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil. Dave R I am far from throwing in the towell here, but the no-longer-conservative Republican Party essentially has tossed it in, and is therefore no match for the Clintonistas. I just cannot see any other dim taking the nomination away from the Hildewench. The conservative movement has effectively been silenced. We are now thirteen months from what I believe will be the defining election for the future of our republic. Where the hell is the so-called "conservative" Republican Party? Dave R Just remember, that cold January inaugural morning is going to be downright frigid-in more ways than one. BTW-As Chamberlain was decidedly complacent in ignoring the stark realities of his day, I consider myself to be Churchill in this scenario, as he was essentially ignored until the flying feces really impacted the proverbial fan. "I hate to say it yet again, but barring some unforseen calamity, the Hildewench will be the next President of the United States." Look, most of us recognize that the Republicans have turned into a bunch of weenies, but to say, over a year out, that "all is lost" is just too much Chicken Little for me. Only problem is, I think we are headed for the revenge of the have-nots in '08. We here at NB seem to think that linear logic will eventually rule the day. Only problem is, most of the unwashed out there do not think linearly, as most of them get their news from ET and Inside Edition. They aren't reading NB, nor listening to Rush, Sean, Neal or whoever. All they care about is "security," and they won't bat so much as an eye in voting to deny us our freedom, if that is what it takes to give them the sense of "security" they seek. Single women in this country, who are only concerned with security, will be the ones who put her in the WH. Single women in this country, who are only concerned with security, will be the ones who put her in the WH. David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? Chaitealover There's more than a few of us self-reliant types still around - and I know a lot of up and coming young ones who are learning that it's up to them to keep the movement going. I count among them my 17 year-old-granddaughter who thought she was in favor of Democratic points of view until she got her first job and saw who's pocket those plans came out of. She'll be voting next election, along with her conservative friends. and when he was asked why, he replied, "Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down." CT I think I might try to record it online and make a long string of it. I'll play it at the front door when the neighborhood kids come around for their 'Trick or Treats'. Have you ever heard a more forced phony gut wrenching cackle in your life? "before I was a member of Newsbusters" I am actually hoping Edwards gets the nomination. Hildabeast is very spiteful, would it surprise you if she did something like putting HT as press secretary just for kicks? Dave R To be bluntly honest here, the libertarian in me is beginning to return in a huge way. Short of someone rising up who is a combination of Abe Lincoln, who also has the spunk of Roosevelt (Teddy), the put up-with-no-BS of Harry S Truman, the foreign-policy (only) portion of Nixon, and the (sometimes) conservatism of Ronald Reagan, I may very well be writing in my schnoodle Oliver for prez in '08. And how would that be seen insofar as the "credibility" of the site? If a "liberal equivalent" was needed, why did it take a politician to mid-wife it? Lastly, quoting FrontPage isn't exactly neutral, "non-biased" sourcing. the creation" of Media Research Center, then I suggest find a list the members of the Council for National Policy Yes, Brent Bozell is a member of CNP and a creator of MRC No, they are not "grass roots" - they are conservative politicians, religious and political activists. I try to use conservative sources (like the conservative FontPage ma... |
mm.org If y ou choose to continue using your current browser however, all of our con tent will continue to be accessible. Matchmaker - by the time you meet, you know * Already a member? If you choose to continue with th e use of your current browser however, all of our content will continue to be accessible to all versions of every browser. |
MM.org If y ou choose to continue using your current browser however, all of our con tent will continue to be accessible. Matchmaker - by the time you meet, you know * Already a member? If you choose to continue with th e use of your current browser however, all of our content will continue to be accessible to all versions of every browser. |