MonroeTalks.com > Categories > Politics and Government > Great new Rush parody


Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Great new Rush parody  (Read 7001 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TK9317

  • Super Talker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 184
  • Open the Blast Doors!
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2007, 09:58:54 PM »

PK9317:

Right after I made the case about how these folks offer nothing other than partisan hate
you respond with another load of nothing but partisan hate.  My only fear is people will think
you're a plant of mine to help me prove my point! I appreciate your helping me prove my
point, but I want the folks to know I had nothing to do with your reply.   


Johnny,
Its TK, not PK.
Anyway...I have to correct you on another point. 
In order to spread partisan hate, one must be associated or committed to a political party.
I, on the other hand, have no affiliation with any political party.
I am an equal opportunity offerer of hate for those who want to listen.
Just like your buddy Rush?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 10:29:26 PM by TK9317 »
Logged
TK9317
501st Legion
Great Lakes Garrison

sue lee

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2314
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #16 on: September 10, 2007, 10:15:49 PM »

Coffee Mom,
You sound like a clone. I listen to Rush on occasion. I find him very funny.  What I find upsetting is that people like you repeat him  almost word for word , then say you have a mind of your own.
As far as Mr. Kopke, he likes to call names at  posters he considers "liberals". But he can not present an argument. He is full of hot air.
Logged
The best mannered people make the most absurd lovers.

Crysti

  • Active Talker
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #17 on: September 10, 2007, 10:25:00 PM »

Coffee.Mom,
I listen to Rush as well. I find that he "says what he means--and means what he says" that it what people either find brutally truthful or half-truths. Personally, he tells is like it is and people don't like hearing the truth, especially the media, with their liberal slant. They never tell you the rest of the story! I think he is honest and very funny. Thanks for sharing the little ditty from the show today. I missed it, but I am sure it will be repeated.  :)
Logged

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #18 on: September 10, 2007, 10:29:18 PM »

Well I see where some people acquire their opinions from.

The guy is on drugs and rants to make money

Heaven help us.

Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

John Kopke

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7245
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #19 on: September 10, 2007, 10:57:01 PM »

Dandy, TK (Not PK),

Not once have either of you been able to come up with even a "single" instance of where
Rush lied in all your replies. Dandy you take the cake when you replied that I couldn't "acknowledge any merit whatsoever to my critisisms posted earlier today".  How can I acknowledge any merit to criticism that has absolutely, positively NOTHING to back it up? I give up.

« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 11:28:39 PM by John Kopke »
Logged
John Kopke

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2007, 11:06:33 PM »

MomEm

I see no need to recruit more people to level the playing field.
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

sue lee

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2314
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #21 on: September 10, 2007, 11:20:43 PM »

He is full of hot air because he can not offer a legitimate argument, only call names.
Logged
The best mannered people make the most absurd lovers.

John Kopke

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7245
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #22 on: September 11, 2007, 12:26:14 AM »

MOMem

You be the judge. Susan Lee has called Coffee.mom a "clone" and me a "name caller" whom is full
of hot air and can't make a legitimate argument.

Yet in this thread all I did was make an legitimate argument that those calling Rush a liar back it up with something/anything to substantiate their claim. Yet from Susan Lee's perspective, I was the name caller
whom was unable to offer a legitimate argument.

Seems to me Susan Lee really had to keep the blinders on tight and stretch to get in a slam.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2007, 12:37:51 AM by John Kopke »
Logged
John Kopke

sue lee

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2314
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #23 on: September 11, 2007, 12:45:02 AM »

No John, I said Coffee Mom sounds like a clone, and you call  people names. I did not call either of you names. ;D
Logged
The best mannered people make the most absurd lovers.

Dandy_Richardvilles

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #24 on: September 11, 2007, 06:35:46 AM »

Dandy, TK (Not PK),

Not once have either of you been able to come up with even a "single" instance of where
Rush lied in all your replies. Dandy you take the cake when you replied that I couldn't "acknowledge any merit whatsoever to my critisisms posted earlier today".  How can I acknowledge any merit to criticism that has absolutely, positively NOTHING to back it up? I give up.



John,

Not only do I take the cake, I'll take your knife and serving spatula as well, and then return both of them to you unwashed.

Anyway, let me throw out two instances of Rush mischaracterizing/oversimplifying things right off the top of my head.

Global warming.  Even if you don't think it's as serious an issue as some people do, it certainly is something that merits serious discussion.  Why?  Because the consequences will be pretty unpleasant if the vast majority of scientists are correct.  I'm not calling for panic, but it seems serious discussion needs to be had.

But oh no, not if you are Rush Limbaugh!  If you are Rush, first you play that "Ball of Fire" parody a few times, you know, just to lighten the mood and make people forget the seriousness of the issue. Then you singlehandedly declare the theory to be nonsense, thereby overruling the majority of the scientific community.  This despite the fact that Rush couldn't even get passing grades at a third rate college, so yeah, all of a sudden he's Mr. Science.

Next is him attacking Democrats as not supporting the troops just because they voted against the financing required to keep them in Iraq.  It's idiotic for him to characterize things that way.  Democrats have basically only one way to end this war, and that is by "de-funding" it.  You can argue all day about the wisdom of ending the war in Iraq, but the fact is that all Democrats were trying to do was end the war by the only means open to them.  But oh no, once again Rush has it all figured out.  According to him Democrats hate our troops, hate freedom, etc., and their attempt to de-fund the war was nothing short of a betrayal of the troops.  You can disagree with Democrats wanting to end the war, but it is patently unfair to accuse them of treason when you know full well that's not the case.

Anything sound familiar John? ;)  Now bake me another cake so I can take that one as well. :D
Logged
 Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Trisha

  • Guest
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #25 on: September 11, 2007, 07:53:12 AM »

It is sad that in so many areas of this post, especially where politics are concerned, that most revert to name calling.  To agree to disagree is one thing, but the childish antics surrounding this topic and others within MonroeTalks is not cool.  In the end, whomever is elected President is not going to give a rat's arse about us.  This is my personal opinion and not an attack on anyone. 
Logged

TK9317

  • Super Talker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 184
  • Open the Blast Doors!
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #26 on: September 11, 2007, 10:10:24 AM »

Dandy, TK (Not PK),

Not once have either of you been able to come up with even a "single" instance of where
Rush lied in all your replies. Dandy you take the cake when you replied that I couldn't "acknowledge any merit whatsoever to my critisisms posted earlier today".  How can I acknowledge any merit to criticism that has absolutely, positively NOTHING to back it up? I give up.

Johnny,
In 2003 when Rush worked for about a weekend for ESPN, I seem to remember him getting fired from the network for attributing Donovan McNabb’s success and then inflated QB rating to his skin color.
When Rush makes a statements like that, it says to me that he could really care less whether McNabb is a good player or not. 
His intent is to redirect his listeners/viewers, therefore, keeping them from the truth so that the next time someone with black skins does a good job or is praised for something well done the success will automatically be called into question by the devoted Rush listener/viewers.
They trust him and he is fully aware of their loyalty and he exploits it.
This makes him the worst kind of liar.
So…let’s see.
Global Warming Doesn’t Exist (Thanks Dandy_Richardvilles).
Cigarettes Aren’t Addictive.
Weapons of Mass Destruction HAVE Been Found.
Michael J. Fox Exaggerates The Effects Of His Disease.
And….drum roll please.
When Black People Are Successful, It’s Because….well their BLACK.

Perhaps your buddy is just suffering the ill effects from his Oxycotton addiction?
Logged
TK9317
501st Legion
Great Lakes Garrison

Dandy_Richardvilles

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #27 on: September 11, 2007, 03:29:14 PM »


First, please explain to me why providing meaningful access to health care for all our citizens is so evil? 

Second, you don't have to be Iranian to hate President Bush, not when there are so many other reasons to find him reprehensible.



It's not the government's job to provide health care to everyone. And in the countries where it's been implemented, it's been disastrous. Want to see the problems with socialized medicine? Check out the info on this website:
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

And of course you don't have to be Iranian to hate Bush, but I fail to see how patriotic Americans can "hate" Bush or consider him reprehensible . . .

If it's because of the war in Iraq, puh-lease! I suppose we were supposed to sit back and do nothing after 9-11. May I quote from a recent column by Victor Hanson in The Modesto Bee:

"The truth is that, thanks to Bush, bin Laden's original bases in Afghanistan are lost. His al-Qaida followers in Iraq are being systematically decimated -- with the help of Sunni tribesmen repulsed by jihadist atrocities. A recent poll from the Pew Research Center revealed a precipitous drop in support among Middle Easterners for the tactics of suicide bombing, and a growing unpopularity for bin Laden himself."

Bush is not perfect, but he's trying to head off the al-Qaida threat on foreign soil . . .or would you rather that we sit back and do nothing and just wait for them to attack us again?


CoffeeMom,

I'd probably be going too far to think that because you didn't respond to my follow up comments on Rush (the meat, potatoes, and extra gravy of this thread) that you'd accepted the truth about him?  Oh well, I can always hope.  On to the next 2 issues.

The parody implies there's something inherently wrong with making sure that everyone has meaningful access to health care ("meaningful" is the key word)  I asked what is so evil about that notion, and you only responded by saying it's not the governments job.  You know what else isn't the government's job?  Taking your tax dollars and shipping them off in foreign aid packages to places like Egypt (you know, the place where Mohammed Atta was from)  Taking your tax dollars and funding billions in pork projects that serve no pressing need.  Taking your tax dollars and bailing out entities like Amtrak, airline carriers, or insurance companies who don't want to honor their policies.  None of those things are the government's job either, yet they do it.  So, it seems there's a disconnect when we allow our wallets to be plundered for those type of things while disregarding something about which there ought to be some sort of moral compulsion to address.

I'm pretty familiar with the arguments against socialized medicine, still I don't see residents of the UK or Canada dropping like flies.  There's no doubt we have great healthcare providers here in the US.  However, if our present system isn't flawed, please tell me why Americans crossed the border to get prescriptions filled in Canada, and why Americans fly to places like Bumrungrad Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand to get treatment and procedures that they can't get or afford here?

By the way, that website link you provided was great.  I mean where else could I find nuggets like:

                     Although many of the uninsured would like coverage, a number have chosen to be self-
                     insured.  These people are not poor. - Doug Bandow, Bradley Smith, Lawrence Reed, April 15,  
                     1994 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]

Not only do those statements lack internal logic, they have the strong tendency to induce the "Say what?!" response.

But the bottom line is this...you say socialized medicine is disastrous.  Let's assume it has some serious flaws, AND that we'd be too dumb to learn from the mistakes of other countries, having less than desirable access to health care IS NOT worse than having NO ACCESS to health care.

*                                                                        *                                                                     *

You fail to see how "patriotic" Americans can hate Bush?  Is that because there is no tradition of political dissent in America?  Is it because the 1st Amendment, which protects political speech most of all was abolished and no one told me?  Let me give you a few reasons why someone might find Bush reprehensible.

     1.  He suborns perjury from his subordinates, the most recent example being Alberto Gonzalez.  Call me old fashioned, but I don't think it's proper to tell your subordinates to lie to Congress.

     2.  He approves of "unique" interrogation techniques, endorses outsourcing of torture through the use of "renditions", and he refuses to put prisoners on trial.  Now he is correct in saying that Common Article III of the Geneva Convention does not apply to "unlawful combatants."  Still, the United States, which I believe is the best country on earth, does not torture and we do not hold people in prisons forever without a trial.  My country is far better than that.  Even if you can create a scenario which you feel justifies torture, you simply must put people on trial.  If they are found guilty, then give them the maximum punishment allowed by the jurisidction in which they are tried, be it the death penalty or life imprisonment, but give them a trial.  (and, Bush is no Lincoln, so you might not want to go down that road)

     3.  He uses the military as a prop, whether its for cheap photo ops or to vocally support whatever his hare brained plan du jour is.  Do you really believe absolutely everyone in the military thinks he is right about everything?  Of course not, but they are a captive audience that Bush parades in front of a camera whenever he has the chance.  There's a reason why you don't hear any significant (attributed) dissent within the military, and it's the same reason why generals don't offer criticism until they retire.  The reason why is that to openly disagree, question, or criticize Bush is a crime under the UCMJ.  The threat of a court-martial has a tendency to make people keep their opinions to themselves.

     4.  He debases Christianity.  If you're going to cloak yourself in the Shroud of Turin to get the religious vote, it's a bit inconsistent to turn around and promote perjury, torture, and suspend habeas corpus, among other things.

     5.  He thinks his accountability to the American people ended once he was re-elected.  It's admirable to not be consistently swayed by whichever way the winds of public opinion may be blowing on any given day.  However, to essentially say that you don't care what the vast majority of Americans emphatically want, well that makes things seem less like a democracy and more like a dictatorship.  Government of the people, BY the people, FOR the people.

     6.  It is obvious that he read Orwell's 1984.  However, rather than reading it as a cautionary tale, he apparently thought it was a how-to Tyranny For Dummies guide.  If Orwell were still alive he would have eviscerated Bush long ago.

I'm not sure if you like those apples, but there's a lot more of them just hanging from the branches of the Tree of Knowledge.

No, I never espoused sitting on our hands after 9/11.  I fully endorsed the actions in Afghanistan.  What I did not endorse was creating a second front before we had gotten Bin Laden.  As others have learned (Russians, British) even if you bring your "A game" to Afghanistan, you're lucky to avoid a disastrous outcome.  When you're going after public enemy #1, you don't take any action that reduces your chance of capturing him.  And as to creating a second front, if you're serious about bringing justice to those who brought about 9/11, then after we got Bin Laden, we should have gone to Saudi Arabia and taken out the Wahhabi extremists, then to Egypt.  The butchers of 9/11 came from those three countries almost exclusively, but they are our "friends."  And I say, with friends like those who needs enemies.

As to your quote from Victor Hanson, I think the first key word is "original".  The second key word is "decimated."  Decimated, hmmm, you mean more than four years after "Mission Accomplished" for every 100 Al Qaeda we've killed, there's 900 still alive?  Does that "decimate" language take into account the new terrorists that spring up to replace those who have been cut down?  If Victor thinks everything in Afghanistan and Iraq is so rosy, I would encourage him to go to the State Department's website and read the travel warnings for both countries, perhaps even take his family on a vacation as I hear Kabul is beautiful this time of year.

I know I know, we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here...and if we pull out of Iraq, they'll follow us to Pete's Garage...

Listen, if it's simply a matter of them following us wherever we go, pull all the forces out of Iraq and move them to Afghanistan, that way you can kill two birds with one stone.  Besides, preventing another attack here has more to do with internal intelligence gathering and cooperation by our various agencies than it does with maintaining a stalemate in Mesopotamia.

Bush is not perfect?  That must have hurt to say.

Logged
 Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

sue lee

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2314
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #28 on: September 11, 2007, 03:53:53 PM »

Dandy,
I bow to you.
Logged
The best mannered people make the most absurd lovers.

TK9317

  • Super Talker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 184
  • Open the Blast Doors!
Re: Great new Rush parody
« Reply #29 on: September 11, 2007, 06:39:49 PM »

Quote
CoffeeMom,

I'd probably be going too far to think that because you didn't respond to my follow up comments on Rush (the meat, potatoes, and extra gravy of this thread) that you'd accepted the truth about him?  Oh well, I can always hope.  On to the next 2 issues.

The parody implies there's something inherently wrong with making sure that everyone has meaningful access to health care ("meaningful" is the key word)  I asked what is so evil about that notion, and you only responded by saying it's not the governments job.  You know what else isn't the government's job?  Taking your tax dollars and shipping them off in foreign aid packages to places like Egypt (you know, the place where Mohammed Atta was from)  Taking your tax dollars and funding billions in pork projects that serve no pressing need.  Taking your tax dollars and bailing out entities like Amtrak, airline carriers, or insurance companies who don't want to honor their policies.  None of those things are the government's job either, yet they do it.  So, it seems there's a disconnect when we allow our wallets to be plundered for those type of things while disregarding something about which there ought to be some sort of moral compulsion to address.

I'm pretty familiar with the arguments against socialized medicine, still I don't see residents of the UK or Canada dropping like flies.  There's no doubt we have great healthcare providers here in the US.  However, if our present system isn't flawed, please tell me why Americans crossed the border to get prescriptions filled in Canada, and why Americans fly to places like Bumrungrad Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand to get treatment and procedures that they can't get or afford here?

By the way, that website link you provided was great.  I mean where else could I find nuggets like:

                     Although many of the uninsured would like coverage, a number have chosen to be self-
                     insured.  These people are not poor. - Doug Bandow, Bradley Smith, Lawrence Reed, April 15,  
                     1994 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]

Not only do those statements lack internal logic, they have the strong tendency to induce the "Say what?!" response.

But the bottom line is this...you say socialized medicine is disastrous.  Let's assume it has some serious flaws, AND that we'd be too dumb to learn from the mistakes of other countries, having less than desirable access to health care IS NOT worse than having NO ACCESS to health care.

*                                                                        *                                                                     *

You fail to see how "patriotic" Americans can hate Bush?  Is that because there is no tradition of political dissent in America?  Is it because the 1st Amendment, which protects political speech most of all was abolished and no one told me?  Let me give you a few reasons why someone might find Bush reprehensible.

     1.  He suborns perjury from his subordinates, the most recent example being Alberto Gonzalez.  Call me old fashioned, but I don't think it's proper to tell your subordinates to lie to Congress.

     2.  He approves of "unique" interrogation techniques, endorses outsourcing of torture through the use of "renditions", and he refuses to put prisoners on trial.  Now he is correct in saying that Common Article III of the Geneva Convention does not apply to "unlawful combatants."  Still, the United States, which I believe is the best country on earth, does not torture and we do not hold people in prisons forever without a trial.  My country is far better than that.  Even if you can create a scenario which you feel justifies torture, you simply must put people on trial.  If they are found guilty, then give them the maximum punishment allowed by the jurisidction in which they are tried, be it the death penalty or life imprisonment, but give them a trial.  (and, Bush is no Lincoln, so you might not want to go down that road)

     3.  He uses the military as a prop, whether its for cheap photo ops or to vocally support whatever his hare brained plan du jour is.  Do you really believe absolutely everyone in the military thinks he is right about everything?  Of course not, but they are a captive audience that Bush parades in front of a camera whenever he has the chance.  There's a reason why you don't hear any significant (attributed) dissent within the military, and it's the same reason why generals don't offer criticism until they retire.  The reason why is that to openly disagree, question, or criticize Bush is a crime under the UCMJ.  The threat of a court-martial has a tendency to make people keep their opinions to themselves.

     4.  He debases Christianity.  If you're going to cloak yourself in the Shroud of Turin to get the religious vote, it's a bit inconsistent to turn around and promote perjury, torture, and suspend habeas corpus, among other things.

     5.  He thinks his accountability to the American people ended once he was re-elected.  It's admirable to not be consistently swayed by whichever way the winds of public opinion may be blowing on any given day.  However, to essentially say that you don't care what the vast majority of Americans emphatically want, well that makes things seem less like a democracy and more like a dictatorship.  Government of the people, BY the people, FOR the people.

     6.  It is obvious that he read Orwell's 1984.  However, rather than reading it as a cautionary tale, he apparently thought it was a how-to Tyranny For Dummies guide.  If Orwell were still alive he would have eviscerated Bush long ago.

I'm not sure if you like those apples, but there's a lot more of them just hanging from the branches of the Tree of Knowledge.

No, I never espoused sitting on our hands after 9/11.  I fully endorsed the actions in Afghanistan.  What I did not endorse was creating a second front before we had gotten Bin Laden.  As others have learned (Russians, British) even if you bring your "A game" to Afghanistan, you're lucky to avoid a disastrous outcome.  When you're going after public enemy #1, you don't take any action that reduces your chance of capturing him.  And as to creating a second front, if you're serious about bringing justice to those who brought about 9/11, then after we got Bin Laden, we should have gone to Saudi Arabia and taken out the Wahhabi extremists, then to Egypt.  The butchers of 9/11 came from those three countries almost exclusively, but they are our "friends."  And I say, with friends like those who needs enemies.

As to your quote from Victor Hanson, I think the first key word is "original".  The second key word is "decimated."  Decimated, hmmm, you mean more than four years after "Mission Accomplished" for every 100 Al Qaeda we've killed, there's 900 still alive?  Does that "decimate" language take into account the new terrorists that spring up to replace those who have been cut down?  If Victor thinks everything in Afghanistan and Iraq is so rosy, I would encourage him to go to the State Department's website and read the travel warnings for both countries, perhaps even take his family on a vacation as I hear Kabul is beautiful this time of year.

I know I know, we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here...and if we pull out of Iraq, they'll follow us to Pete's Garage...

Listen, if it's simply a matter of them following us wherever we go, pull all the forces out of Iraq and move them to Afghanistan, that way you can kill two birds with one stone.  Besides, preventing another attack here has more to do with internal intelligence gathering and cooperation by our various agencies than it does with maintaining a stalemate in Mesopotamia.

Bush is not perfect?  That must have hurt to say.

Bravissimo!
Bravissimo!
Bravissimo!

Dandy,
I remove my bucket and whipe the tear from my eye!
Logged
TK9317
501st Legion
Great Lakes Garrison
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up