STEVEJ

The next time someone uses the phrase "Liberal Looney" remember this quote from their messiah!

"And now the liberals want to stop President Reagan from selling chemical warfare agents and military equipment to Saddam Hussein, and why? Because Saddam 'allegedly' gassed a few Kurds in his own country. Mark my words. All of this talk of Saddam Hussein being a 'war criminal' or 'committing crimes against humanity' is the same old thing. LIBERAL HATE SPEECH! And speaking of poison gas . . . I SAY WE ROUND UP ALL THE DRUG ADDICTS AND GAS THEM." - Rush (oxycontin) Limbaugh, Nov. 3, 1988

N2272V couldn't have said it better himself, I just love the phrase"Liberal hate speech" seems like you can plug that into any response and scare a few people and who does this next quote remind you of?

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, April 18, 1946, while awaiting the Nuremberg trials.


Just passing the time, 4th 12 hr shift in a row ...................

Criton

SteveJ:

I thought the first quote was really funny. Now I know why. It was taken from the August 6, 2004 edition of "classic Boondocks" comic strip. It showed a bunch of kids sitting aroung the radio in 1988 listening to the cartoon Rush Limbaugh.

You'll grasp at any straw, won't you.

STEVEJ

And what cartoon was the second quote from? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Criton

As far as I could tell, the second quote was accurate. Put a gold star on your forehead.

STEVEJ

Hey....not neccessary, but thanks anyway. Ref the first para, quite a few people have said that is close to what he really said and changed a little for the cartoon. I cannot find the original quote but I have little doubt he said it. I just read a lot of his quotes....he is one twisted rightwing bastard, I really hope he enjoys "date night" in the big house when he gets there, maybe he and Rove can double up.....now theres a visual if there ever was one

N2272V

First let's quash this rumor because it is false and could only be believed by someone who NEVER listens to his radio show, has never read one of his books and therefore, like a lemming, pulls quotes from the internet and posts them as facts:

Down in the Boondocks

Claim: Talk show host Rush Limbaugh's 3 November 1988 broadcast included a statement approving the selling of chemical warfare agents to Saddam Hussein and the gassing of drug addicts.

Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004]

And now the liberals want to stop President Reagan from selling chemical warfare agents and military equipment to Saddam Hussein and why? Because Saddam "allegedly" gassed a few Kurds in his own country. Mark my words. All of this talk of Saddam Hussein being a "war criminal" or "committing crimes against humanity" is the same old thing. Liberal hate speech! And speaking of poison gas... I say we round up all the drug addicts and gas them too!

Rush Limbaugh, November 3, 1988

Origins: A time-honored method of discrediting one's political opponents is to put words in their mouths — to make it appear they once said something which now paints them as foolish, hypocritical, or just plain wrong. In that vein comes the current item, a quote that supposedly doubly tags conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh as a hypocrite: first for justifying the sale of chemical warfare agents (i.e., "weapons of mass destruction") to Saddam Hussein and then supporting the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to rid that country of such weapons, and second for suggesting that drug addicts should be dealt with harshly and then admitting his own addiction to prescription pain medication.

Whatever opinions Mr. Limbaugh may have expressed on his radio program over the years regarding arms sales to Saddam Hussein and the social issue of drug addiction, the item cited at the head of this page is not a genuine transcript of something broadcast on his show on 3 November 1988. It's actually a lampooning taken from the comic strip The Boondocks.

Boondocks creator Aaron McGruder often employs the device of running "Classic Boondocks" strips, which are supposedly past examples of his work dug out of the archives and offered up to his audience once again. The gimmick is that "Classic Boondocks" aren't really older versions of Boondocks strips being run for a second time — they're freshly-created material backdated and presented as strips from years gone by as a method of drawing attention to and commenting upon current political issues. Thus the 1 August 2004 version of the strip purports to be a re-run of a strip "originally printed November 3, 1988" in which the Huey character listens to a radio broadcast by "some guy named Rush Limbaugh," who speaks the words quoted at the head of this page.

Although the political intent of the 1 August 2004 Boondocks strip was clear, the context that it was not really a repeat of a strip from 3 November 1988 and did not report something Rush Limbaugh actually said over the airwaves on that date went missing in action, and the text of the strip has since been passed around the Internet as if it were a genuine transcript of a portion of a 1988 Rush Limbaugh broadcast.

Steve, I hate to tell you this because you are confused, but quoting misquotes from comic strips does not lend one credibility. It just illustrates and lends credence to the term I use for you, LIBERAL LOONY.

I can see where you would love the phrase "liberal hate speech". It comes across in most of your rants and postings here. You have got to be desperate to make points by first quoting a comic strip from Doonsbury, then rant about a talk show host who's more credible these days than the mainstream media.

How sad it must be to be a Liberal these days and be relegated to the ash-heap of irrelevancy.

By the way, you have not seen N2272V aka Jim McDonald, post anything that stated "Liberal Hate Speech". However, that is what we see a lot of as it relates to moronic liberals like Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and a host of others.

I am not sure what is meant by posting this quote. Are you attempting to compare this to what is currently happening? This is not only absurd, but a retarded argument being postulated by the Liberal "hate mongers" who can't accept the fact that Liberals LOSE elections.

This country was NOT dragged into war anything like the above quote. Here are the results on the decision to go to war:

Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."

FACT BOX
• "The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

• The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.

• The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution.

Poll information:

After one week of fighting in Iraq, a large majority of Americans supports U.S. military action and approves of the way the war is being conducted.

The latest FOX News poll, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, finds that fully 78 percent of Americans support (66 percent “strongly” support) taking action to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power and 18 percent oppose. Earlier this month support for action was at 71 percent (54 percent “strongly” supported) with 20 percent opposed.

This is a far cry from being dragged into the war goofball.

Steve, you and the liberals haven't been right YET (don't try to use the WMD argument because even the LEADING liberlas thought that was fact and I have their quotes to prove it).

(1) Liberals stated that Bush's tax cuts would hurt the economy; It hasn't. They took in MORE reveue as a result of INCREASED economic activity.

(2) Liberals stated that we would suffer large losses taking on Saddam's Army; We didn't. As a matter of fact, the successful execution of the Iraq war was a testament to our military's ability to perform in harsh environments and it's use of superior tactics and technology.

(3) Liberals stated that elections would not take place as scheduled; They did and there was even a higher turnout than expected despite the threats from outside terrorists to kill and disrupt the process.

(4) Liberal media outlets projected Kerry would win the election; He didn't and lost by a larger margin than ANY polsters polled.

Face it Steve, you and your buddies are severely lacking in credibility and the ability to predict the future. You offer no solutions, you lie, you distort and you criticise things you know little about.

I would suggest that the next time you try to make a Liberal point, you choose something MORE credible than a Doonsbury cartoon to make your point.

Dismissed looney tune!

N2272V

You cannot find the original quote because it does NOT exist as you copied and pasted it. DUH!

More hate speech Steve? I wonder why his radio show is one of the most successful and listened to shows in the history of radio? Must be by accident, eh Steve. DUH!

You know what amazes me about this type of statement: "...he is one twisted rightwing bastard"? It's an opinion, not based on any facts about the person himself, and usually this type of comment is made by someone who hasn't listened to his show, read any of his books and automatically believes that the only people who could listen to him are of low IQ's. This is typical of the absurd eletist mentality of Liberals.

The fascinating thing about haters of Rush Limbaugh is first, they don't know anything about the man; two, Rush can debate his philosophy and back it up with facts and thoughtful reasoning for his beliefs. This is something I have YET to see of a person of Liberal persuasion. Most Liberals can't support their beliefs with any facts or thoughtful reasoning. Most Liberal speak is whatever FEELS good at the time.

I suggest you spend some time listening to his radio show with an OPEN mind, read his books, then come back and we can debate whether or not this GREAT man is a "bastard". Perhaps Steve, YOU are the "bastard?" Think about it.

Carry on!

Takeo von Tucher

... my replies are always short, because or I work and have at least 5 minutes to read and write on the Internet, or I´m off and much better to do than going through Jimbos Jumbo posts about twisting the truth and defending his fascist government... remember: the truth is always true, but for some people certain truth is truer than truth.

cpal_747

How are those superior tactics and technology now keeping the citizens of Iraq safe? Or are you like Rumsfeld who believes that the insurgent attacks (and therefore unsafe environment) will persist for at least 12 years.

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

N2272V

You wouldn't know truth if it walked up and slapped your racist, bigoted, neanderthal head Takeo Von Duschbag.

You're replies are short because they lack substance AND facts.

P.S. The definition of Fascist is as follows so you can quit MISusing the term:

1 : often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Only a total moron like yourself wouldn't know the difference. As you may glean from the above mentioned definition, this does describe aptly most of the governments in the Middle East currently. People of REASON hope to instutute change so that they can live in a free and democratic society.

You're dismissed you irrellevant moron!

N2272V

The Iraqi citizens are not currently safe because morons like you give creadance to terrorist attacks by blaming the coalition for their murders. If the media did not give so much air time and legitimacy to these murderers, their attacks would eventually cease as it would bring them no political gain.

I am sure your puny brain cannot see the logic of this argument, but perhaps with time and constant reminders of the FACTS, you will eventually realize that the terrorists are murderers and responsible for their OWN actions and it has NOTHING to do with our presence in Iraq or what is best for the Iraqi people. You might also realize that these so-called muslims are killing other muslims. There is no legitimacy to their attacks. Only creeps like you who have this retarded notion that America is the bad guy can buy this looney tune crap.

I do not believe that these terrorists attacks on the innocent men, women and children of Iraq will continue on for the next 12 years and I challenge you to provide me the FACTUAL quote where Rumsfield has stated this.

I do believe the WORLD will be fighting the terrorists who preach hatered and intollerance for years to come.

But, all that spoken, I am sure you wont let the FACTS get in the way of your fantasy world, as is evident in ALL your postings.

Carry on looney Liberal!

cpal_747

Just so that I understand your truthful position on this, before the insurgents strap on their backpack bombs or pack their cars with explosives, they check FoxNews and see if they are being covered. If they are still being covered, then they proceed with their suicide mission, if not they put the explosives away nd go out and try to find a real job?


In this paragraph you state that the terrorists are responsible for their own actions. Now which is it? Are they taking their cues from their own terrorist organization or FoxNews?

You wanted a quote you idiot, I'll give you the quote and even quote the source where I got it from, unlike you who just cuts and pastes rather than giving credit to the actual sources.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3241540

Rumsfeld: Iraq could face insurgents for 12 years

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today it may take as long as 12 years to defeat Iraqi insurgents and that Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, will finish the job.

Rumsfeld, addressing a question about whether U.S. troops levels are adequate to vanquish the increasingly violent resistance, said, "We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.

"Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency," the Pentagon chief told "Fox News Sunday."

It must be really embarassing for you when your leaders speak, as everytime they open their mouths something nonsenical always seems to come out. I guess when Cheney said the last throes of the insurgency, he was referring to the last 12 year throe of the insurgency!

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

N2272V

It figures you wouldn't get it. Are you REALLY this dense? Or do you have to work at it?

No Capl, they know that when they do go out and murder innocent men, women and children, that morons like you and the news Media will cover it adnaseum and whine about how the US is responsible for the increase in terrorism in the world.

P.S. They don't just get it from Fox News either. They get even better coverage from CNN, CBS, MSNBC and ABC. DUH!

Only a looney tune moron like yourself can be so ignorant as to make this kind of statement. What has Fox News got to do with anything dumbass?

They take their cues from their own misguided beliefs that murdering innocent men, women and children is going to get them the coverage they need to feed their propoganda machine and get idiots like you to help them obtain more funds to continue their murderous escapades.

I'll ask you a question, although all I will get is more BLATHER. What do you think the terrorists objective is? Provide a better life for Iraqi's by murdering them? DUH!

No moron, this is NOT what you originally stated. You're original MIS-QUOTE was "Or are you like Rumsfeld who believes that the insurgent attacks (and therefore unsafe environment) will persist for at least 12 years".

This statement, when in context, is his assessment of what MAY occur over 5, 6, 8, 10 or 12 years. There's a lot of room here.

So please spare me your indignation when your original statement was FALSE and out-of-context.

What is scary is that you really are too DENSE to see the difference.

Carry on looney tune!

cpal_747

Where do you think the terrorists are watching all this TV coverage? Is it in the house that was demolished by US forces, or is it in the local restaurant that coincidentally was also demolished by US forces. You sure seem to give the media a lot of power in this situation.

I always thought that insurgents main focus was to get the US the hell out of THEIR country. Is that not what they want?

How is that original statement false. Rummy made a statement that the insurgency could last as long as 12 years. Paraphrasing someone does not make the statement false or out of context, or are you just too dense to see that.

How come you aren't lobbying your congressman to increase the age for military recruits. Come on Jimbo, put your money (and life) where your mouth is!

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

richie154

Jiiiimbo The Blowhard needs a nice, shiny new Stage III HUSHKIT.

__________________
The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villian with a smiling cheek, a goodly apple rotten at the heart. Oh, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!

Private Pilot: 10/20/2005
Private Multi Engine: 05/09/2008
The more things change, the more Mesa still sucks.

N2272V

Stop already goober. You aren't even remotely funny with the hushkit issue. Its stupid.

Dismissed.

N2272V

Are you really naive enough to think that these poeple are living in caves? You need to get a clue shit-for-brains. The people carrying out these attrocities, the leaders, get newspapers and live in the neighborhoods where they plan their despicable acts. You think they are living in caves? DUH

They also have access to the internet. I guess when you live in a cave yourselve, this stuff would be "news" to you eh?

Another CLUELESS statement coming from the CLUELESS. MOST of these TERRORISTS (they are not insurgents), come from OTHER countries. They didn't vote, the Iraqi people didnt ask them to come in, and most of the people they are killing are Iraqi's and MUSLIM.

You are major dumbass you know that? How old are you? 10?

You see Cpal, to make such a dumbass statement is proof that you actually think that these terrorists have a legitimate reason to kill their fellow muslims, men women and children. I'd be interested to know what YOU think these poeple have to offer the Iraqi people that is better than the coalition? I have asked this question NUMEROUS times and you have yet to answer it with any clarity or honesty.

I'd also like to know how killing innocent Iraqi people would have anything to do with getting us out of their country. Wouldn't it be easier and faster to just stop the killing and once stability is established, we leave? If they want the coalition to leave, shouldn't they be killing the coalition soldiers? Or is it that they know the media is their best ally and by killing as many people as they can for as long as they can, they may win the war of words and perception? Oh yeah, you don't think they know what is happening in the news do you? DUH

I know why you wont answer these questions, the question is, do you?

Please try not to be the liberal media mouthpiece and call these terrorists killers insurgents either. It lends some kind of legitimacy to their killing which they don't deserve. Here is the definition of insurgent, and they a FAR from being insurgents:

1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party.

Here is the definition of terrorist to make sure you can see the difference:

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

Dimissed until your next clueless rant!

By the way, do you ever wonder why I respond to your blathering rants? It's because every time you post such absurd nonsense, you PROVE my case as to why Liberals should be on the fringe where they are today and not in the mainstream.

cpal_747