I was beginning to think I was the only one who heard him this way. This is why I enjoy listening to Rush so much. He is truly an unsung genius at what he does. I’ve been trying to sell luci on Rush for some time, but I don’t think it’s taking.
hwo knows? He says he is. But he does say it three or four times every hour, so maybe he protests too much.
I bet he is though. The human capacity for rationalization should not be underestimated.
You know, when I was younger and more idealistic, I wanted to be a poet because I loved the power of words so much. Now I realize that politicians have poets whupped hands down when it comes to knowig the power of words.
There’s something goddam strange going on here, it is the dog that isn’t barking. The level of outrage over this story seems to be right next to non-existent. Nobody seems to much give a shit, save our own SimonX, who is throwing midair conniption fits with hair ablaze. Rightly, in my estimation, but that’s niether here nor there.
Maybe this kind of stuff is just too full of fnords?
These kinds of things are hard to believe. I think one has to be rigorous about citations for this crap to keep from vanishing in Chapel Perilous as a paranoid conspiracist.
My wife doesn’t always let me do this sort of thing. On this she’s indulging me.
Remember, he’s making fun of his listeners. It’s really very, very funny once you apply the appropriate Straussian methods of extrapolation to his discourse. I’m sure you’d approve of the jokes if only you heard them. One of my favorites where Rush was really on his game, was when a caller was complaining about evilution being taught in public schools.
It was absolutely masterful and brilliant use of English. He left the caller with the impression that Rush agreed with him, yet never made any attempt to refute evilution or promote creationism. All the while he addressed issues that were of direct interest to the caller. I could’ve done the same thing on paper, but it would’ve taken me an all nighter, a quart of Turkish coffee and gallon of wine. Here was Rush doing it (apparently) while flying by the seat of his pants, live on air. Amazing.
Liberals will never, ever be able to counter-act the Limbaugh effect until they become one with it.
Several directors of Hollinger International Inc. will come under strong criticism from the special committee of the firm’s board when it releases its long-awaited report today into alleged wrongdoing among company executives.
Getting the most heat among the directors will be U.S. Defence department adviser Richard Perle, who will be singled out among the group, sources say.
“Perle is in a category by himself,” said one source who is familiar with the contents of the report.
Mr. Perle’s venture capital company, Trireme Partners LP, received a $2.5-million (U.S.) investment from Hollinger International, according to securities filings.
He was also chairman of Hollinger Digital LLC, an arm of the firm that allegedly paid millions of dollars in inappropriate bonuses to executives, according to a suit filed by the special committee. Hollinger branded ‘kleptocracy’:
Inc. chairman Conrad Black and his lieutenant David Radler engaged in “self-righteous and aggressive looting” of the company, creating a “corporate kleptocracy” that cost the newspaper publisher almost all its profit over seven years, a long-awaited special committee report charged Tuesday.
As a whole, the committee also said Hollinger’s board was “not alert” but added that independent board members - with the exception of former U.S. defence adviser Richard Perle, who the committee said they didn’t consider independent - also acted reasonably given what they were relying on reports of the audit committee. Richard Perle, Hollinger & His Global Web of Fraud:
What connects Richard Perle to Douglas Feith, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, ELF Oil, Lord Black, Iraq, Israel, Iran, Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon, Bush Snr and Bush Jnr, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, China, Adnan Kashoggi, Saudi Arabia, Global Crossings, Boeing, Halliburton, the DoD?
Answer: Money, filthy lucre, loot, cash, dosh, greenbacks, call it what you will, the so-called leaders of the ‘free world’ are hooked on its possession and will do anything to get their grubby hands on it. All else is window dressing for the ‘masses’.
Answer: Money, filthy lucre, loot, cash, dosh, greenbacks, call it what you will, the so-called leaders of the ‘free world’ are hooked on its possession and will do anything to get their grubby hands on it. All else is window dressing for the ‘masses’.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
There’s something goddam strange going on here, it is the dog that isn’t barking. The level of outrage over this story seems to be right next to non-existent.QUOTE]If I believed any of this, I’d have to ask myself how to tell a thousand dead Americans that they sacrificed themselves for a lie. The thought of doing that stresses me out so much that I seek comfort in obsessing over the impossible conundrum of deciding which child is most in need of up-picking. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could somehow pick up all the children!
WASHINGTON – The Pentagon office in which an analyst is the focus of an investigation into the possible passing of secret documents to Israel is at the heart of another ongoing probe on Capitol Hill."
They contend that the now-defunct Policy Counterterrorism Coordination Group, set up after the Sept. 11 attacks to search for links between Al Qaeda and state sponsors such as Iraq, never gathered intelligence; it only reevaluated previous government findings. The Iraq War planning group called the Office of Special Plans, meanwhile, did not engage in any wrongdoing or questionable contacts, they said.Fun with negative pregnants: note the specificity of the language in these ^ denials.
contd…But investigators for the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is closely scrutinizing the office as part of a formal probe of pre-Iraq War intelligence-gathering, and Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, who are conducting a preliminary probe, say that the full picture of the office’s activities may include more than meets the eye. They are seeking additional documents and interviews from policy officials.
Someone who was cynical might speculate that the quiet is a sign of how different campaign warchests have AIPAC monies in them. I’ve heard that it’s not uncommon.
Yet another reason why artificial persons should lose their privileges to lobby legislatures and contribute to election campaigns. It’s the single best idea I’ve come up with for combating the insiduously deleterious effects of rational ignorance.
Because, in the context of their usage, “own” and “bought and paid for” are what are commonly referred to as euphemisms. (look it up)
The demanding of “proof” to substantiate a euphemism is another example of what I referred to as adolescent debating tactics. (Grinnin’ back at 'cha)
Well, when Congressman Dingleberry receives an annual stipend from Lobby A, and subsuquently votes to send American tax-dollars to Lobby A’s interests, it may not meet the burden of “proof”, but it most certainly is circumstantial evidence.
You do remember what happened on 9-11-2001, right?
There’s a elephant sitting in the livingroom, and not only is it not acknowledged, it’s presence is actually denyed.
America’s foreign policy regarding the Middle East, can be traced directly to 9-11.
George Washington, during his farewell address, gave those charged with the future governance of the United States some advice.
Of course, our modern-day legislators know so much better than those who founded the Republic, of what is best for today’s America.
Well, how has that worked out? Just look at today’s Manhattan skyline.
Again, “bought and paid for” is a EUPHEMISM, hardly something that could be called a fact. However, when one takes money to perform a task, the “bought and paid for” designation is quite apropos.
No, you are the one waffling. I asked you whether or not a reciepient of an AIPAC contribution was expected to vote accordingly, or if AIPAC gave contributions out of benevolence. You refuse to answer.
Bull… CAMERA’s main objective appears to be to exonerate Israel of any malfeasance. Ergo, CAMERA has no more, or no less credibility, than a so-called “anti-semetic” website.
Kinda like no “reputable” news organization ran with the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. Like no “reputable” news organizations ran with the Israeli “art student” espionage story. And no “reputable” news organization ran with Israeli “movers” high-fivin’ and dancin’ the hora over the destruction of the World Trade Center.
Actually, no, they’re not euphemisms. you look it up
They’re not attempting to make anything less harsh, and if they’re not factual, then they’re wrong.
First, you’d do well to know what the words you are using mean before you accuse someone else of anything.
Second, if I used the euphemism “Person X and person Y were intimate.” instead of saying they were fucking, would that then mean that you couldn’t evaluate the factual nature of my statement because I used a euphemism?
So in other words, zero proof?.
Or are you honestly taking the position that lobying=owning politicians?
Yes, but I’m guessing that you’re going to somehow try to link it to something without providing proof.
Mind elaborating on what this elephant is and how you can prove its existence?
To a certain degree, yes.
What is this supposed to prove?
Okay, you are drawing what conclusion?
And you are prepared to back it up with which facts?
Again, you’re using that word incorrectly.
Even if it is ‘only an opinion’, opinions must be based on fact or be incorrect.
And, stop waffling.
Either it is a factual position and thus you can analyze its truth content, or it is an '“opinion”, “euphemism” etc… and thus, in your mistaken opinion, it is invulnerable to challenge.
Pick one side of the fence please.
…
You are attempting to argue two contradictory positions and talking out of both sides of your mouth.
And I am the one waffling?
Yes, I refuse to answer as your question is both loaded and ridiculous.
As your own cite pointed out, there are 38 major lobying organizations before AIPAC, and you are accusing not one single one of ‘owning’ the federal government.
Yes, people give money to politicians they think will vote their way, or who they want to convince to vote their way. And yet, you have still failed to find voting records of elected officials who have changed their views when given filthy filthy lucre.
Unless you want me to accept that lobying, in and or itself, is equal to ‘owning’ politicians, you have a lot of work left to do.
Pardon?
Or is this another ‘opinion’ that doesn’t have to be backed up with facts?
Squink and SimonX: Even if you believe that effective lobbying guarantees control of politicians, do you think that one special interest group controls a majority or totality of them? If not, how do you believe the power structure is divided? Do we have data on which groups are more effective than others?
And, perhaps RazorSharp, you meant ‘hyperbole’ not ‘euphemism?’
Here’s a painless primer on rational ignorance, the number one threat facing the republic (don’t listen to elucidator). Read it first.
Special interest groups don’t seek to control a politician per se, so much as they seek to have rules and laws made/enforced in manners that they find fitting. What a pol does on other, unrelated issues isn’t of much concern. Each special interest group has varying levels of success with different endeavors.
The crux of this big biscuit is that there’s no PAC for representing the best interests of Americans now and to come. The theory is that the politician’s will do this. However, the necessary oversight of the electorate is inadequate. The pol’s acting solely in the best interests of the nation sometimes doesn’t reward politicians’ efforts as well as acting in the best interests of those who help them stay elected. It’s just how the game is currently designed. (Not that this removes one whit of responsibility from the shoulders of corrupt politicians)
Ahhhh.
Now that the phrase is refined, I can grok it.
So we are not ‘owned’ by any group, that is an hyperbole:
instead, the political process lends itself abuse by special interest groups with lots of cash.