View Full Version : I find it very hard to believe that Glenn Beck is sane
You know how I feel about anyone on TV/Radio that has a flock of sheep following them but while others manipulate the sheep just for money, I think Beck really believes this stuff making him and his sheep, kind of insane.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/09/beck-eugenics/
BECK: So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research, and then some, fundamentally changing – remember, those great progressive doctors are the ones who brought us Eugenics. It was the progressive movement and it science. Let’s put science truly in her place. If evolution is right, why don’t we just help out evolution? That was the idea. And sane people agreed with it!
And it was from America. Progressive movement in America. Eugenics. In case you don’t know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. …. The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening. So I guess I have to put my name on yes, I hope Barack Obama fails. But I just want his policies to fail; I want America to wake up.
Listen here:
Independent Harry
03-11-2009, 11:50 AM
He is insane, so here it comes. The right wishing for Obama to fail. Here all along I thought these were great patriots who just want what is best for the country regardless of what political affiliation a person has...
Smurf-Herder
03-11-2009, 12:11 PM
More cheap partisan attacks from SM.
More cheap partisan attacks from SM.
You mean those aren't Glenn Beck's words?
Posting the actual words and the radio clip of Glenn Beck's own words are attacking? You may wish to deny the truth, but it's still there.
michiganFats
03-11-2009, 03:10 PM
I used to listen to Glenn Beck's radio show, and I thought that he was very entertaining and funny. Once he moved to Fox, he became a totally different guy. I guess every man has his price.
GetAClue
03-11-2009, 03:52 PM
He is insane, so here it comes. The right wishing for Obama to fail. Here all along I thought these were great patriots who just want what is best for the country regardless of what political affiliation a person has...
One more example of a liberal taking something said out of context too attack those that he disagrees with. I think it has been clarified a number of times that the comment was that most conservatives want BHO's POLICIES to fail and by extension his agenda. We believe that if HE is successful implementing those policies, it will be detrimental to the country.
However you liberals are so defensive of BHO that you will follow blindly for the sake of party over the country. After all, wasn't it Hillary Clinton that said that it is NOT unpatriotic to voice your difference of opinion with their policies? Oh, but that was then when Bush was president, not now when Barry holds office.
What a hypocrit!
Smurf-Herder
03-11-2009, 04:03 PM
You mean those aren't Glenn Beck's words?
Posting the actual words and the radio clip of Glenn Beck's own words are attacking? You may wish to deny the truth, but it's still there.
If you read a story I posted in the Embryo stem cell thread:
"Next comes a move to lift the unfortunately named Dickey-Wicker amendment in Congress, which prohibits using tax dollars to create human embryos for research purposes. If the amendment is rescinded, human embryos can be created and destroyed with federal tax dollars.
Good people can disagree on these things, but those who insist that this is "only about abortion" miss the point. The objectification of human life is never a trivial matter. And determining what role government plays in that objectification may be the ethical dilemma of the century."
Maybe he's thinking of this.
People would have thought you insane too, if you were to suggest in 1933 the Nazis would be doing the things they were found to have done by 1945.
They said Beck was insane when he predicted the current economic crisis back in 2005.
Binky
03-12-2009, 04:57 PM
Puts me in mind of a conversation around the poker table back in the 1970's. My hubby and I had both stated that one day, in our lifetimes, there would be a terrorist attack in America. The folks around the table laughed their butts off and made us look like a couple of know nothing fools. Well, about three years ago, one of those that laughed so heartedly at us was here on a visit. He told us that he and his siblings were no longer laughing, and that they all agreed we had been right way back when, and that it wasn't funny anymore. Unfortunately, we sure as hell didn't want to be right. :(
Hog Trash
03-12-2009, 05:18 PM
Originally Posted by Smurf-Herder
More cheap partisan attacks from SM.No doubt...You mean those aren't Glenn Beck's words?
Posting the actual words and the radio clip of Glenn Beck's own words are attacking? You may wish to deny the truth, but it's still there.What he means is, there was alot of cutting and splicing that took place before this was posted.
As you would say, your source is a biased pundit with an agenda other than complete honesty.
SeedyROM
03-12-2009, 07:47 PM
I used to listen to Glenn Beck's radio show, and I thought that he was very entertaining and funny. Once he moved to Fox, he became a totally different guy. I guess every man has his price.
Beck is the same today as he was when he was on CNN's spinoff. I've never heard his radio show byt his TV personality is border line crazy at times. He's too goofy to take seriously, perhaps its just an act but seriously. For the money I'd do it too but I don't think the goofyness is an act. Ask Sirmoby or others, Beck's TV personality is the same.
MintJulep
03-12-2009, 09:42 PM
He is insane, so here it comes. The right wishing for Obama to fail. Here all along I thought these were great patriots who just want what is best for the country regardless of what political affiliation a person has...You mean like the dems did for the past eight years?
SeedyROM
03-12-2009, 10:42 PM
He is insane, so here it comes. The right wishing for Obama to fail. Here all along I thought these were great patriots who just want what is best for the country regardless of what political affiliation a person has...
We all want the best for the country, even those on the right. The reason the right disagrees with Obama is because they are smart enough to know the debt Obama is creating is way too much and its is happening in a vaccum where debate is not an option. That's just plain stupid.
You mean like the dems did for the past eight years?
Was there a leading dem that wanted Bush to fail? I know that the Neocon media kept making that claim but now we know they were making that claim. It's how they feel.
No doubt...What he means is, there was alot of cutting and splicing that took place before this was posted.
As you would say, your source is a biased pundit with an agenda other than complete honesty.
So do you think he is completely sane?
MintJulep
03-13-2009, 12:37 AM
Was there a leading dem that wanted Bush to fail? I know that the Neocon media kept making that claim but now we know they were making that claim. It's how they feel.I think the better question is; was there even one leading dem who wanted Bush to succeed?
foxbaron
03-13-2009, 01:57 AM
I think Beck is an honest individual and that he seriously cares about this Country.
He tells the truth from the perspective of the average guy which most Democrats can not understand because they don't hae a clue what the average guy thinks.
I think what bothers you folks is that Beck actually makes sense and does it in an entertaining way. But then again, common sense has never been you alls strong suit.
Independent Harry
03-13-2009, 04:10 AM
I think Beck is an honest individual and that he seriously cares about this Country.
He tells the truth from the perspective of the average guy which most Democrats can not understand because they don't hae a clue what the average guy thinks.
I think what bothers you folks is that Beck actually makes sense and does it in an entertaining way. But then again, common sense has never been you alls strong suit.
So since this country is split 50/50 pretty much along party lines. How is it that there are no democrats that are average thinking guys?
I think the better question is; was there even one leading dem who wanted Bush to succeed?
Don't pull that shit around here. In America you are innocent until proven guilty. If you don't agree with that then you might be happier in a country with less freedom.
You insinuated that dems are guilty of wanting Bush to fail. Show us the pundits that made that claim. Show us the pundits that defended such statements. Show us the politicians that supported such pundits, statements and thoughts.
We don't play the anti-American "prove your innocence" shit around here. You can go play that in countries that don't foster freedom. You need to prove guilt.
GetAClue
03-13-2009, 10:55 AM
Don't pull that shit around here. In America you are innocent until proven guilty. If you don't agree with that then you might be happier in a country with less freedom.
You insinuated that dems are guilty of wanting Bush to fail. Show us the pundits that made that claim. Show us the pundits that defended such statements. Show us the politicians that supported such pundits, statements and thoughts.
We don't play the anti-American "prove your innocence" shit around here. You can go play that in countries that don't foster freedom. You need to prove guilt.
Here is one!
http://patterico.com/2009/03/08/democrats-have-no-right-to-be-snooty-about-rush-not-wanting-the-president-to-succeed/
How about this one?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX_230_release_web.pdf
Here's a good one from Carville. Remember him?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/
Don't like the Fox site? How about an article from Yahoo.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20090312/cm_uc_crlelx/op_249311
Now that we got that out of the way, are you the guy in charge of making sure that nobody post "false" claims on this site? Because in the short time that I have been posting, you are good at calling out those of us with a conservative view point, but TOTALLY ignore the same actions by the liberals that post here.
You have been very hypicritical of late!
MintJulep
03-13-2009, 11:12 AM
Don't pull that shit around here. In America you are innocent until proven guilty. If you don't agree with that then you might be happier in a country with less freedom.
You insinuated that dems are guilty of wanting Bush to fail. Show us the pundits that made that claim. Show us the pundits that defended such statements. Show us the politicians that supported such pundits, statements and thoughts.
We don't play the anti-American "prove your innocence" shit around here. You can go play that in countries that don't foster freedom. You need to prove guilt.Wait, what is the claim you're making here? Are you sincerely saying that the democrats were ever in Bush's court, rallying their constituents to support the President? No. I never saw evidence of that. I saw every possible effort made to undermine anything Bush did and destroy him. "He betraaaaaaayyyed this country" "The war is lost", etc. ad nauseum.
If you have examples of democrats calling for Bush to succeed, please show it. The past eight years of unmitigated hatred from the left cannot be erased now.
MintJulep
03-13-2009, 11:13 AM
Here is one!
http://patterico.com/2009/03/08/democrats-have-no-right-to-be-snooty-about-rush-not-wanting-the-president-to-succeed/
How about this one?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX_230_release_web.pdf
Here's a good one from Carville. Remember him?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/
Don't like the Fox site? How about an article from Yahoo.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20090312/cm_uc_crlelx/op_249311
Now that we got that out of the way, are you the guy in charge of making sure that nobody post "false" claims on this site? Because in the short time that I have been posting, you are good at calling out those of us with a conservative view point, but TOTALLY ignore the same actions by the liberals that post here.
You have been very hypicritical of late!Bingo and thanks. The past eight years have been pretty obvious indeed.
Here is one!
http://patterico.com/2009/03/08/democrats-have-no-right-to-be-snooty-about-rush-not-wanting-the-president-to-succeed/
How about this one?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX_230_release_web.pdf
Here's a good one from Carville. Remember him?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/
Don't like the Fox site? How about an article from Yahoo.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20090312/cm_uc_crlelx/op_249311
Now that we got that out of the way, are you the guy in charge of making sure that nobody post "false" claims on this site? Because in the short time that I have been posting, you are good at calling out those of us with a conservative view point, but TOTALLY ignore the same actions by the liberals that post here.
You have been very hypicritical of late!
Those are Fox News polls. You do know who owns Fox News? You do know who's money was used to found the Weekly Standard and The PNAC don't you? Don't you know who controls over 1/2 of the Neoconservative media?
This is a poll taken from the pundit station? Don't you even understand what news and information is any more? :banghead:
Wait, what is the claim you're making here? Are you sincerely saying that the democrats were ever in Bush's court, rallying their constituents to support the President? No. I never saw evidence of that. I saw every possible effort made to undermine anything Bush did and destroy him. "He betraaaaaaayyyed this country" "The war is lost", etc. ad nauseum.
If you have examples of democrats calling for Bush to succeed, please show it. The past eight years of unmitigated hatred from the left cannot be erased now.
Again, stop with your anti-American hateful bullshit.
Show me evidence where leading democrats claimed that they wanted the President to fail. Just because you're not capable of justifying your own beliefs doesn't mean that people are guilty. It just means that you don't have reason to beleive what you believe.
GetAClue
03-13-2009, 02:02 PM
Those are Fox News polls. You do know who owns Fox News? You do know who's money was used to found the Weekly Standard and The PNAC don't you? Don't you know who controls over 1/2 of the Neoconservative media?
This is a poll taken from the pundit station? Don't you even understand what news and information is any more? :banghead:
Yet if it is CNN, NBC or the others you would claim it more valid? It's a POLL! Not an opinion. Also, read the article about Carville on the morning of 9/11 - " I sure hope he [Bush] dosen't succeed.".
I've seen you post how centrist you claim to be, but have yet to see you take a position that did not align with the leftest sheep that you claim to deplore.
ROdger Right
03-13-2009, 02:26 PM
Again, stop with your anti-American hateful bullshit.
Show me evidence where leading democrats claimed that they wanted the President to fail. Just because you're not capable of justifying your own beliefs doesn't mean that people are guilty. It just means that you don't have reason to beleive what you believe.
Good thing the no calling people anti-american post was taken down.
Where you get off stiffling someones opinion because theres been plenty of evidence, especially as i know you watch all the pundits shows.
MintJulep
03-13-2009, 02:56 PM
Again, stop with your anti-American hateful bullshit.
Show me evidence where leading democrats claimed that they wanted the President to fail. Just because you're not capable of justifying your own beliefs doesn't mean that people are guilty. It just means that you don't have reason to beleive what you believe.Al Gore, being the sore loser he was, screamed that Bush betrayed the country. Moveon.org depicted Bush as Hitler.
On and on and on. Rinse and repeat. For eight years.
Do you have any --even one-- example of Democrats demonstrating they wanted Bush to succeed, in the war or any other endeavor? You have yet to answer this question and I've asked you about three times now.
Edit: Specifically -- what in my post is "Anti-American"? Is asking a question you can't answer the definition?
Yet if it is CNN, NBC or the others you would claim it more valid? It's a POLL! Not an opinion. Also, read the article about Carville on the morning of 9/11 - " I sure hope he [Bush] dosen't succeed.".
I've seen you post how centrist you claim to be, but have yet to see you take a position that did not align with the leftest sheep that you claim to deplore.
Again, please post a link to some leading democrats claiming that they hoped Bush failed and people supporting that claim.
Carville ain't a leader. He has no flock of sheep that follow him.
Maybe it's time to admit that your belief structure isn't based on facts but based on something else.
Al Gore, being the sore loser he was, screamed that Bush betrayed the country. Moveon.org depicted Bush as Hitler.
On and on and on. Rinse and repeat. For eight years.
Do you have any --even one-- example of Democrats demonstrating they wanted Bush to succeed, in the war or any other endeavor? You have yet to answer this question and I've asked you about three times now.
Edit: Specifically -- what in my post is "Anti-American"? Is asking a question you can't answer the definition?
If you can't support your claim that leading dems wanted Bush to fail then just leave it alone. You're digging a deeper ditch. Nothing in your post has anything to do with wanting Bush to fail.
The basic concept of asking people to prove innocence is a very anti-American concept. It's in our legal system that people are innocent until proven guilty and if you don't like that or support that then you have issues. The idea of forcing people to prove innocence is not an American ideal. It is a primitive ideal but it is one used by the Neoconservative media on a regular basis.
We can continue this concept of primitive hateful witch hunts or you can try to enlighten yourself. Our founding fathers wanted us to be enlightened.
Anyone that understands our legal system and our core values knows that asking people to prove innocence is not an American ideal. You and Roger should both know that.
GetAClue
03-13-2009, 03:16 PM
The basic concept of asking people to prove innocence is a very anti-American concept. It's in our legal system that people are innocent until proven guilty and if you don't like that or support that then you have issues. The idea of forcing people to prove innocence is not an American ideal. It is a primitive ideal but it is one used by the Neoconservative media on a regular basis.
We can continue this concept of primitive hateful witch hunts or you can try to enlighten yourself. Our founding fathers wanted us to be enlightened.
Anyone that understands our legal system and our core values knows that asking people to prove innocence is not an American ideal. You and Roger should both know that.
Funny how you invoke this standard when it fits your argument. However, when it came to bashing Bush over the Iraq war, liberals needed no evidence. You have also made claims on this board that some posters that you disagree with are sheep that follow pundits. Again, your standards for those accusations are different that those you wish others to up hold.
Hypocrite.
michiganFats
03-13-2009, 03:24 PM
Funny how you invoke this standard when it fits your argument. However, when it came to bashing Bush over the Iraq war, liberals needed no evidence. You have also made claims on this board that some posters that you disagree with are sheep that follow pundits. Again, your standards for those accusations are different that those you wish others to up hold.
Hypocrite.
I think you are mistaking "liberal" for "progressive nitwit". They are very different things. In fact, there was a time not too long ago when every good American thought of themselves as liberal, republicans included. I find it amusing that the one sentence in SM's post that you chose to highlight was the one that everyone in this country should agree with....The basic concept of asking people to prove innocence is a very anti-American concept. He's right. It is an anti-American concept.
Funny how you invoke this standard when it fits your argument. However, when it came to bashing Bush over the Iraq war, liberals needed no evidence.
Show me where I did.
I have over 8,000 posts on this board. Show me one!
doctordog
03-13-2009, 03:35 PM
Again, please post a link to some leading democrats claiming that they hoped Bush failed and people supporting that claim.
Carville ain't a leader. He has no flock of sheep that follow him.
Maybe it's time to admit that your belief structure isn't based on facts but based on something else.
Caraville is as much of a left leader as Rush is a right leader.
GetAClue
03-13-2009, 03:43 PM
Show me where I did.
I have over 8,000 posts on this board. Show me one!
Show me where I accused YOU of Bush bashing over the war in Iraq. My reference to you was that you accuse everyone that you disagree with of being sheep that only follow pundits. And there are plenty of examples of this.
SeedyROM
03-13-2009, 05:58 PM
Again, please post a link to some leading democrats claiming that they hoped Bush failed and people supporting that claim.
Carville ain't a leader. He has no flock of sheep that follow him.
Maybe it's time to admit that your belief structure isn't based on facts but based on something else.
Carville is a leader and he does have a flock that follow him. Carville crafted many political schemes to boost Obama' image. Carville was on TV and in print all the time.
Why didn't democrats vote to change the banking laws to curtail the housing crisis? Sounds like dems wanted Bush to fail because Dems refused to change the laws. Dems called Bush a treasonist, a stooge, an idiot, a dummy, etc, ect............thier demeanor suggested hate towards Bush. People who hate tend to want them to fail. Dems have low class standards in DC, I doubt you'll see Reps calling Obama such names!!! Dems said far worse, we al know its true, it is pointless for you to deny the facts.
SeedyROM
03-13-2009, 06:02 PM
The basic concept of asking people to prove innocence is a very anti-American concept. It's in our legal system that people are innocent until proven guilty and if you don't like that or support that then you have issues. The idea of forcing people to prove innocence is not an American ideal. It is a primitive ideal but it is one used by the Neoconservative media on a regular basis.
We can continue this concept of primitive hateful witch hunts or you can try to enlighten yourself. Our founding fathers wanted us to be enlightened.
Anyone that understands our legal system and our core values knows that asking people to prove innocence is not an American ideal. You and Roger should both know that.
No one is on trial therefore the concept of innocent till proven guilt does not apply. Is anyone on trial? Politicians have to defend themselves all the time. There is no such animal as the neoconservative media, there is conservative media and there are neocon media commentators but there is no MSM neocon media company......if there really is one then produce documented proof or stop asserting such claims????
Caraville is as much of a left leader as Rush is a right leader.
Are you claiming that he has a following similar to that of Rush?
Who pays him $millions of dollars to get the sheep to follow him?
No one is on trial therefore the concept of innocent till proven guilt does not apply.
So you don't really believe in American ideals?
Show me where I accused YOU of Bush bashing over the war in Iraq. My reference to you was that you accuse everyone that you disagree with of being sheep that only follow pundits. And there are plenty of examples of this.
OK, so show us some examples here on this board.
Finding them from Dis should be easy but we all think he's nuts. Can you find a pattern, a majority or anything that would show that it's more then just the outside fringe?
doctordog
03-13-2009, 06:28 PM
Are you claiming that he has a following similar to that of Rush?
Who pays him $millions of dollars to get the sheep to follow him?
Bill, Hillary, CNN, and on and on and on.
Bill, Hillary, CNN, and on and on and on.
Are you saying that he was employed by Bill and Hillary when he made those statements and that constitutes a massive following such as the one that Rush has?
Please try writing complete sentences and complete thoughts from time to time.
SeedyROM
03-13-2009, 06:59 PM
So you don't really believe in American ideals?
That is not what I said and you know it. So who is on trial, who is the judge and is the trial a jury trial or bench trial?? Huh!!! :D :taunt: :D
SeedyROM
03-13-2009, 07:01 PM
OK, so show us some examples here on this board.
Finding them from Dis should be easy but we all think he's nuts. Can you find a pattern, a majority or anything that would show that it's more then just the outside fringe?
Dis isn't nuts, that's just mean!! He's deep, methodical and angry at times but he's as sane as you are. :thumbsup:
Smurf-Herder
03-13-2009, 08:00 PM
Carville ain't a leader. He has no flock of sheep that follow him.
So you're saying, the people on the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post don't watch the Sunday Morning political talk shows and use things like what Carville and others say in their arguments, to support their arguments?
But they will watch and repeat what's said only by Conservatives, to be able to bash them?
doctordog
03-13-2009, 09:41 PM
Are you saying that he was employed by Bill and Hillary when he made those statements and that constitutes a massive following such as the one that Rush has?
Please try writing complete sentences and complete thoughts from time to time.
he was employed by Bill, CNN, and then Hillary. Rush doesn't have near the followers of carville, radio will always be secondary to TV.....NEXT
ROdger Right
03-13-2009, 09:50 PM
Wait hold the phone.
Are you saying I have to actually show evidendce that dems wanted bush to fail. Sounds like a waste of my time.
Say your sorry and you wont make that mistake again.
Smurf-Herder
03-14-2009, 10:03 AM
September 24, 2006
The Hate Trap
by Craig Charney
September 24, 2006 — The leftist and liberal throng who cheered Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez at a Harlem church Thursday, a day after he called President Bush “the devil,” are just the latest sign of a real problem for the Democratic Party and the nation: Bush-hate is now the opiate of the party’s base.
A recent Fox News poll gets at the disturbing truth: A majority of Democrats say they want to see the president fail. Such deep hatred is bad news for the country at a time when America needs to bridge the partisan divide. It’s also bad news for the Democrats, who risk repeating the Republicans’ mistakes of a decade ago, driving away the centrists they need to regain power or going too far if they do manage to win.
Fox’s question was revealing: “Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?” Democrats said “not,” 51 percent to 40 percent—where the public at large wanted success by almost two to one.
In other words, the rage extends way beyond the lip-pierced Deaniacs, aging hippies and other fringes of the Democratic Party. Lots of otherwise sensible people—suburban moms, hospital orderlies, schoolteachers, big-hatted church ladies—detest George W. Bush.
When these Democrats say they want Bush to fail, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it’s hard to see why independents—hardly right-wing zealots—hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn.
In fact, the fury against Bush has reached unprecedented levels, even compared to the animosity among Republicans to his predecessor. Not long ago, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that “strong disapproval” of Bush was 10 points higher than that recorded for Bill Clinton at any point during his presidency, including his impeachment. (That wasn’t during a war, either.)
Of course, Bush and the Republicans have helped stoke the anger with their own hardball partisanship under Clinton and during this presidency. And there is plenty in Bush’s record that a loyal opposition can legitimately criticize.
Yet if Bush does fail—for instance, if Iraq spirals into civil war or the economy slides into recession—then America is in trouble. Making progress on these key issues, like others facing the country, will require bipartisan solutions, not political finger-pointing.
But even from a strictly electoral perspective, Democrats can’t afford to gloat as disaster strikes. They need to be seen as a credible alternative. They are not one now. Democrats lead in generic House polls because the Republicans’ popularity has slumped, but their own ratings remain almost equally dismal, making their lead a fragile one.
Hate is a fatal response in American politics. It leads to irrational, sectarian, and self-defeating behavior. Republicans, their base consumed by hatred for then-President Bill Clinton, showed this in 1998. Their impeachment drive pushed Clinton’s polls into the stratosphere, yielding unprecedented mid-term gains for the Democrats.
In today’s polarized environment, Democratic candidates feel pressure to respond to their angry voters to avoid the fate of centrist Senator Joseph Lieberman. He lost his Connecticut primary to a blog-powered anti-war newcomer, Ned Lamont. But the positions such candidates take may leave them out of the mainstream and unelectable. Lamont is discovering this in his general election rematch with Lieberman, who is running as an independent.
Some say a little anger is needed to fire up the Democratic base. Reality check: the Democratic base is just two-fifths of the electorate and liberals number just one voter in five. Yet the independent and moderate voters the Democrats must win over to regain a majority are repelled by candidates who pander to rageful supporters with tunnel vision. Of course, Bush and the Republicans may have dug themselves a deep enough hole to let Democrats retake one or both houses of Congress anyway. Discontent over Iraq, the deficit, gas and health care costs, and other issues, is very real and very deep.
Yet a vengeful, subpoena-wielding, overreaching Democratic congressional majority could be just the thing to keep the White House in the hands of the other party in 2008. Ask the Republicans. It’s another lesson they learned the hard way, in 1996.
Charney, president of Charney Research, a New York polling firm, was senior analyst on President Clinton’s 1996 re-election polling team.
http://www.charneyresearch.com/2006Sep24_NYPost_HateTrap.htm
Rush doesn't have near the followers of carville, radio will always be secondary to TV.....NEXT
Rush is considered the most important man in the Republican party and he doesn't have a large following of sheep? Has the Republican party gotten that small?
I didn't know anyone was following Carville or that Bill and Hillary were paying him in 2001. I thought he lost his job with Bill.
MintJulep
03-14-2009, 12:34 PM
Rush is considered the most important man in the Republican party Your opinion.
Your opinion.
No. It's the opinion of Bill Kristol. The founder of the PNAC (the think tank that had the most influence over Bush policy) and recipient of gobs of Rupert Murdoch money. The man that controls much of your information.
You should pay attention to what the real movers and shakers are doing in the GOP.
MintJulep
03-14-2009, 06:44 PM
No. It's the opinion of Bill Kristol. The founder of the PNAC (the think tank that had the most influence over Bush policy) and recipient of gobs of Rupert Murdoch money. The man that controls much of your information.
You should pay attention to what the real movers and shakers are doing in the GOP.PNAC is defunct. Bill Kristol's "opinion" is exactly that -- another opinion.
Your point?
PNAC is defunct. Bill Kristol's "opinion" is exactly that -- another opinion.
Your point?
Again, you show that you're very misinformed. At least you're consistent so always know where you stand.
MintJulep
03-14-2009, 08:39 PM
Again, you show that you're very misinformed. At least you're consistent so always know where you stand.Misinformed? If you think PNAC is still in commission, you need to do some research.
Smurf-Herder
03-15-2009, 10:56 AM
Misinformed? If you think PNAC is still in commission, you need to do some research.
He can't.
It isn't in his programming to.
Hog Trash
03-15-2009, 11:02 AM
So do you think he is completely sane?No one is "completely sane"...Just ask Sigmund Freud.
By what yardstick do you measure sanity?...You believe I'm insane!
In fact, you believe anyone who has contrary opinions to your own of Obama is insane.
I believe Glenn Beck is far more intelligent and "sane" than anyone who has or does support Obama.
Beck has examined the evidence and has not been influenced by the media bombardment of pro-Obama propaganda.
It didn't have to work on all of us, just enough to get him elected...Obama gambled there were more suckers than sane people.
He was right!...But the gullible young had alot to do with the final tally...Historicaly, they are the deciding factor in every marxist victory.
Smurf-Herder
03-15-2009, 11:05 AM
Published on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 by the Inter Press Service
"New American Century" Project Ends With A Whimper
by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - Is the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which did so much to promote the invasion of Iraq and an Israel-centred "global war on terror", closing down?
In the absence of an official announcement and the failure since late last year of a live person to answer its telephone number, a Washington Post obituary would seem to be definitive. And, sure enough, the Post quoted one unidentified source presumably linked to PNAC that the group was "heading toward closing" with the feeling of "goal accomplished".
In fact, the nine-year-old group, whose 27 founders included Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, among at least half a dozen of the most powerful hawks in the George W. Bush administration's first term, has been inactive since January 2005, when it issued the last of its "statements", an appeal to significantly increase the size of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps to cope with the growing demands of the kind of "Pax Americana" it had done so much to promote.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0613-05.htm
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.