Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Enough IS Enough on health care lies
Setting the record straight on healthcare reform.
Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and every other right-wing talking ass should be considered enemies of the state. And sorry, the airwaves ARE public, and they should be held accountable for their bullshit.
If they want to have free-PRESS rights, throw 'em off the PUBLIC airwaves and let 'em get PRESSES.
And BRAVO to U.S. Barney Frank, D-MA, for calling a moron a moron (OK, a dining room table) in a town hall meeting.
And shame on U.S. Dan Boren, "D"-OK, for not having any balls.
--ER
Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and every other right-wing talking ass should be considered enemies of the state. And sorry, the airwaves ARE public, and they should be held accountable for their bullshit.
If they want to have free-PRESS rights, throw 'em off the PUBLIC airwaves and let 'em get PRESSES.
And BRAVO to U.S. Barney Frank, D-MA, for calling a moron a moron (OK, a dining room table) in a town hall meeting.
And shame on U.S. Dan Boren, "D"-OK, for not having any balls.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
It is not "Health Care" that they hate and lie about. It is not even Obama, although that is who they will focus on. It is their own pitiful little helpless selves they can't stand to live with that they hate so much.
I was was working road construction in the summer of 1963 and I heard the same shit then that I'm hearing now. What goes around comes around.
"The right-wingers who angrily and contemptuously protested JFK’s visit, and the many other right-wingers who shared their views, could only have been jubilant when they heard of the assassination. How could persons with their mentality not be pleased with the violent death of a man they believed to be a fiendish traitor? It is an historical truth that right-wingers all over America received the news of the assassination with celebration. There is plenty of evidence that numerous right-wingers, especially the radical ones, heartily huzzaed the JFK slaying, although they soon decided to conceal their exuberance and later denied having cheered. William Manchester’s book, for example, discusses the “initial glee” with which right-wingers greeted news of the assassination. “An Oklahoma City physician beamed at a grief-stricken visitor and said, ‘Good. I hope they got Jackie.’” In Amarillo, Texas, a woman reacted by saying: “Hey, great, JFK’s croaked!” Men whooped and threw their hats in the air. Others smiled broadly. Soon, however, the right-wingers realized that their public gloating was a ghastly mistake, whereupon they began concealing their happiness. “[T]hey were anxious to avoid the undertow of public opinion,” Manchester says."
Last time, we were naive, and unblooded. If it happens again, if it is even attempted, then I think that we might react differently this time.
This is not exactly a threat mind you, but I am advising some of my moderate conservative friends to scrape some of the identifying bumper stickers off of their cars, just in case.
I was was working road construction in the summer of 1963 and I heard the same shit then that I'm hearing now. What goes around comes around.
"The right-wingers who angrily and contemptuously protested JFK’s visit, and the many other right-wingers who shared their views, could only have been jubilant when they heard of the assassination. How could persons with their mentality not be pleased with the violent death of a man they believed to be a fiendish traitor? It is an historical truth that right-wingers all over America received the news of the assassination with celebration. There is plenty of evidence that numerous right-wingers, especially the radical ones, heartily huzzaed the JFK slaying, although they soon decided to conceal their exuberance and later denied having cheered. William Manchester’s book, for example, discusses the “initial glee” with which right-wingers greeted news of the assassination. “An Oklahoma City physician beamed at a grief-stricken visitor and said, ‘Good. I hope they got Jackie.’” In Amarillo, Texas, a woman reacted by saying: “Hey, great, JFK’s croaked!” Men whooped and threw their hats in the air. Others smiled broadly. Soon, however, the right-wingers realized that their public gloating was a ghastly mistake, whereupon they began concealing their happiness. “[T]hey were anxious to avoid the undertow of public opinion,” Manchester says."
Last time, we were naive, and unblooded. If it happens again, if it is even attempted, then I think that we might react differently this time.
This is not exactly a threat mind you, but I am advising some of my moderate conservative friends to scrape some of the identifying bumper stickers off of their cars, just in case.
Any goddamn Republican who doesn't take every opportunity to distance himself or herself from these freaks is a goddamned Republican, in my book.
So offically now you're against the 1st admendment. Also you can't go to heaven talking that way.
I think Satan has more control of you than God.
I think Satan has more control of you than God.
# posted by 
: 6:21 AM
: 6:21 AM
Personally I kinda loved Barney Frank's question, "Madam, on what planet do you spend most of your time?"
lol
Remember, as anonymous and the rest of these nutjobs demonstrate, 50% of all people are stupider than the average person.
lol
Remember, as anonymous and the rest of these nutjobs demonstrate, 50% of all people are stupider than the average person.
"So offically now you're against the 1st admendment"
The 1st amemdment does not cover, incitement to riot, to murder, to commit treason, etc.. The SCOTUS has deliniated the 1st amendment. I stand within their definiton.
If you want to celebrate an assasination of a POTUS for example, you most certainly may do so. You may not however advocate it or incite it.
As for Satan...yes, he has a hand in this game. Which seat is he sitting in, is the question.
The 1st amemdment does not cover, incitement to riot, to murder, to commit treason, etc.. The SCOTUS has deliniated the 1st amendment. I stand within their definiton.
If you want to celebrate an assasination of a POTUS for example, you most certainly may do so. You may not however advocate it or incite it.
As for Satan...yes, he has a hand in this game. Which seat is he sitting in, is the question.
By the way do you realize that UnitedHealth Group is bargaining with the Senate Finance Committee for a guaranteed 35% profit above cost for health insurance companies. I think I know how to cut health care cost.
Teddy K.
What a joke. Wants the law he had changed to fit his agenda changed back again. I can see the cancer hasn't affected his way of thinking.
What a joke. Wants the law he had changed to fit his agenda changed back again. I can see the cancer hasn't affected his way of thinking.
# posted by : 5:52 PM
: 5:52 PM
Sigh. Sorry, Anon, but I've been on the road and in meetings all day to learn even more surely how to meet your own hate of people, and your blindness to righteous indignation regarding systems and politics that leaves people EFFED.
Re, "So offically now you're against the 1st admendment."
No. I'm against those who oppose a return to the organized allocation of the public airwaves, and reasonable requirements that many sides of given issues be allowed time. Yep. The Fairness Doctrine served us well and needs to be resurrected. You, and anyone else, can say what they want. But those radio stations and TV stations granted access to the public airwaves should be required to be fair to as many sides of controversy as can be mustered.
Re, "Also you can't go to heaven talking that way."
Bullshit. You don't even understand what it means to take the Lord's name in vain. For a clue, listen closer to the likes of Hannity. Or, just do some research and some thinking.
Re, "I think Satan has more control of you than God."
Sometimes, true, perhaps. It's a bitch to learns to detect truth in the shifting sands of life.
Re, "So offically now you're against the 1st admendment."
No. I'm against those who oppose a return to the organized allocation of the public airwaves, and reasonable requirements that many sides of given issues be allowed time. Yep. The Fairness Doctrine served us well and needs to be resurrected. You, and anyone else, can say what they want. But those radio stations and TV stations granted access to the public airwaves should be required to be fair to as many sides of controversy as can be mustered.
Re, "Also you can't go to heaven talking that way."
Bullshit. You don't even understand what it means to take the Lord's name in vain. For a clue, listen closer to the likes of Hannity. Or, just do some research and some thinking.
Re, "I think Satan has more control of you than God."
Sometimes, true, perhaps. It's a bitch to learns to detect truth in the shifting sands of life.
Re, "Teddy K. What a joke. Wants the law he had changed to fit his agenda changed back again."
That's fair commentary.
Re, "I can see the cancer hasn't affected his way of thinking."
That's fairly cruel. Do you actually know Jesus?
That's fair commentary.
Re, "I can see the cancer hasn't affected his way of thinking."
That's fairly cruel. Do you actually know Jesus?
The gal that the queen from MA had the shouting match with is a Lyndon LaRouche-Democrat, not a Repub. As a Democrat will you "distance" yourself from her?
AND, drolbojo they made a movie about killing Pres. Bush, I don't recall you throwing a piss fit back then. I'll keep my stickers on my truck, just let some pussy lib try to take 'em off!!!!!!
AND, drolbojo they made a movie about killing Pres. Bush, I don't recall you throwing a piss fit back then. I'll keep my stickers on my truck, just let some pussy lib try to take 'em off!!!!!!
# posted by : 7:58 PM
: 7:58 PM
I'm distancing from the Blue Dogs, and the congressman who reps my home district, so yeah. Right now, on the public option on health care, I'm agin' anybody who'se agin it.
Refresh my memory about a movie about Bush's demise ... ???
Refresh my memory about a movie about Bush's demise ... ???
Lyndon LaRouche is a total idiot, my party loyalty extends as far as I can throw most candidates. To LaRouche it extends not at all.
Of course I shat on the idea of the Bush assassination movie just like I did on the Comedy Channel's "That's My Bush" series.
If you want the Untied States to slip into a third world country then kill off a President, now, after we have been taken over by the International Corporate interest. Beside I didn't think much of Cheney becoming President, Bush's welfare was close to my heart.
Anon, real peoples' politics ain't as cookie cutter simple as yours seems to be. You are either young or dumb are playing some game of being such. JFK's assassination shook this country to its core. We were lucky to have had the strength of an LBJ (albeit imperfect) to lean on then. There's no LBJ out there this time to lean on. We would not fare too well I think.
That would suite AIG, Merril Lynch, UnitedHealth Group, Toyota, USB, etc. etc. etc. real fine. Say, you want to be a citizen of WalMart?
Of course I shat on the idea of the Bush assassination movie just like I did on the Comedy Channel's "That's My Bush" series.
If you want the Untied States to slip into a third world country then kill off a President, now, after we have been taken over by the International Corporate interest. Beside I didn't think much of Cheney becoming President, Bush's welfare was close to my heart.
Anon, real peoples' politics ain't as cookie cutter simple as yours seems to be. You are either young or dumb are playing some game of being such. JFK's assassination shook this country to its core. We were lucky to have had the strength of an LBJ (albeit imperfect) to lean on then. There's no LBJ out there this time to lean on. We would not fare too well I think.
That would suite AIG, Merril Lynch, UnitedHealth Group, Toyota, USB, etc. etc. etc. real fine. Say, you want to be a citizen of WalMart?
Here's the movie info:
"Death of a President (2006)".
AND,
drlobojo, in regards to LBJ I would ask you to do some research on two topics:
1) Brown & Root.
2) Jim Wells County Precinct 13 in the 1948 Democratic Pary runoff for the open Texas Senate seat.
"Death of a President (2006)".
AND,
drlobojo, in regards to LBJ I would ask you to do some research on two topics:
1) Brown & Root.
2) Jim Wells County Precinct 13 in the 1948 Democratic Pary runoff for the open Texas Senate seat.
# posted by : 10:26 PM
: 10:26 PM
I figures the R politicos is gonna get all they didn't want and more...serves em right fer bein disagreeanatin, truthless, and unidealful...at least fer right now, more than the D politicos.
But to real important stuff...I call on prez Brock to use his prez mojo to the pardon football ketcher, plexiglass burrels, what got 2 yeers of jail fer shootin his ownself accidentalike...BULLPIES!!...if that'n be the norm, half my kin would be in the hooskow. Hell, Chaney shot a feller in the face and I don't think he even had to apologize
FREE PLEXIGLASS!! Yall call the prez and tell'em!!
But to real important stuff...I call on prez Brock to use his prez mojo to the pardon football ketcher, plexiglass burrels, what got 2 yeers of jail fer shootin his ownself accidentalike...BULLPIES!!...if that'n be the norm, half my kin would be in the hooskow. Hell, Chaney shot a feller in the face and I don't think he even had to apologize
FREE PLEXIGLASS!! Yall call the prez and tell'em!!
"AND, drolbojo they made a movie about killing Pres. Bush"
Didn't see the movie. Sounds stupid.
But...
It's a freaking movie. Here we have Mr. Anonymous who is too stupid to know the difference between a make-believe and real people bringing real guns to real events with the President, and real people really making real signs threatening the lives of the President, his wife, and his children.
If you can't tell the difference between movies and reality, Mr. Anonymous, i'd suggest seeking professional help. Generally that's a sign of some pretty serious psychiatric problems.
Or you're just a moron. Probably a little from column A, and a little from column B.
Didn't see the movie. Sounds stupid.
But...
It's a freaking movie. Here we have Mr. Anonymous who is too stupid to know the difference between a make-believe and real people bringing real guns to real events with the President, and real people really making real signs threatening the lives of the President, his wife, and his children.
If you can't tell the difference between movies and reality, Mr. Anonymous, i'd suggest seeking professional help. Generally that's a sign of some pretty serious psychiatric problems.
Or you're just a moron. Probably a little from column A, and a little from column B.
Enemies of the State? Please explain where Hannity or Limbaugh have commited any such requests for violence, or have made any direct or indirect threats against any politicians. Those a vapid statements, contradictory to anything I have heard from either of those two. I certainly can understand viable complaints as to their points of view, and even their demeanor (Hannity wrapped up in the Flag and Religion, and Rush wrapped up in Rush). But the day that they are qualified as "Enemies of the State," is a day that this will no longer be my state. Can we stop insinuating that the actions of individual nut jobs are some how tied to their ideologic populists?
I recall the movie about assasinating the President, and the vast silence from the Keith Olbermann's of the left that followed. The argument is as to how the media may be instigating such acts, a movie certainly qualifies for the discussion.
As to the Health care "lies," I suggest you read the bills and make your own judgement. From my reading, I do not see either the left or right representing honestly.
Anon, "Satan has more control of you than God."
1. Whose fault is that?
2. Come on.
3. That vitriol really shrinks the tent, which is probably your preference. See you at the Anti-Masonic Party Convention.
I recall the movie about assasinating the President, and the vast silence from the Keith Olbermann's of the left that followed. The argument is as to how the media may be instigating such acts, a movie certainly qualifies for the discussion.
As to the Health care "lies," I suggest you read the bills and make your own judgement. From my reading, I do not see either the left or right representing honestly.
Anon, "Satan has more control of you than God."
1. Whose fault is that?
2. Come on.
3. That vitriol really shrinks the tent, which is probably your preference. See you at the Anti-Masonic Party Convention.
Ya got me, Doc. U got caught up in my own hyperbole and vitriol.
On the other hand, both of those jerks have called us jerks who are left of center things just as bad, so I'll let my hyperbole and vitriol stand in answer to 'em.
I do wish we could all calm down.
On the other hand, both of those jerks have called us jerks who are left of center things just as bad, so I'll let my hyperbole and vitriol stand in answer to 'em.
I do wish we could all calm down.
As far as Anon's take on Satan and God, if it's Tug, I don't think he gives enough actual thought to either to tell 'em apart.
Anon--"I'll keep my stickers on my truck, just let some pussy lib try to take 'em off!!!!!!"
You though I was talking about taking the stickers off? Naw, you go ahead and keep them there. That's appropriate.
LBJ sinned? Yes,agreed, so?
Doc: "Enemies of the State? Please explain where Hannity or Limbaugh have commited any such requests for violence, or have made any direct or indirect threats against any politicians. Those a vapid statements, contradictory to anything I have heard from either of those two."
How about "incitement"?
Now after they have incited, and "listeners" have acted, then we will talk about them being enemies of the state. Glen Beck is learning about incitement and Capitalism as I write this. O'Reily will be faceing a jury in a Civil Case in the near future for incitement to murder I hear.
Murdoc is beginning to feel the political effects of his unleashed nut cases. He has also noted that this is beginning to cost him money in advertisment revenues.
My only hope is that it is all delt with back and forth in these small ways and not in some 'big bang' like Oklahoma City or JFK.
And, you guys, why not put some more bumper stickers on your rides.
Please.
You though I was talking about taking the stickers off? Naw, you go ahead and keep them there. That's appropriate.
LBJ sinned? Yes,agreed, so?
Doc: "Enemies of the State? Please explain where Hannity or Limbaugh have commited any such requests for violence, or have made any direct or indirect threats against any politicians. Those a vapid statements, contradictory to anything I have heard from either of those two."
How about "incitement"?
Now after they have incited, and "listeners" have acted, then we will talk about them being enemies of the state. Glen Beck is learning about incitement and Capitalism as I write this. O'Reily will be faceing a jury in a Civil Case in the near future for incitement to murder I hear.
Murdoc is beginning to feel the political effects of his unleashed nut cases. He has also noted that this is beginning to cost him money in advertisment revenues.
My only hope is that it is all delt with back and forth in these small ways and not in some 'big bang' like Oklahoma City or JFK.
And, you guys, why not put some more bumper stickers on your rides.
Please.
~drlobojo, I'll keep my stickers on the truck and I'm not too worried about any libs attacking my person, see I'm an able-bodied and most libs will only attack a smaller, weaker person than themselves (being the cowards the vast majority of you are). For example see the union thugs that beat up the conservative black man in the wheelchair who was attending a townhall meeting. LBJ was the most corrupt individual to ever make it to the oval office, other than than you've missed the point and I'm not going to waste anymore time on you.
~Alan, kiss my ass you dickhead, sorry ER but he started it.
~ER, I'm not Tug but I like he's stuff.
~Dr. Loney, I love your stuff, please do more of it more often.
~Alan, kiss my ass you dickhead, sorry ER but he started it.
~ER, I'm not Tug but I like he's stuff.
~Dr. Loney, I love your stuff, please do more of it more often.
# posted by : 4:12 PM
: 4:12 PM
Well, I'd have to give the "corrupt" award to Nixon, although he was very smart.
But the most corrupt administration was Grant's.
But the most corrupt administration was Grant's.
And you confuse a peference for peaceful living with cowardice. But I'll let that slide.
I'm sorry, too, Alan. But, eh. What meaningless digital drivel from an Onymous?
I'm going out. Somebody mop up the blood when y'all are done.
I'm sorry, too, Alan. But, eh. What meaningless digital drivel from an Onymous?
I'm going out. Somebody mop up the blood when y'all are done.
I would have to go with Harding as the most corrupt. LBJ would be maybe 6th or 7th. Anon. you just keep on downsizing your opposition and thinking of them as weak and ineffectual. That's a good thing for you to do.
LBJ was the most corrupt "individual", there was no end to what the man would do for power and p.ssy (sorry folks).
Grant & Harding would probably tie for corrupt admin. Nixon was an extremely intelligent person but was also "beans crazy" as the saying goes. Grant was just a drunk who appointed corrupt flunkies to office.
Grant & Harding would probably tie for corrupt admin. Nixon was an extremely intelligent person but was also "beans crazy" as the saying goes. Grant was just a drunk who appointed corrupt flunkies to office.
# posted by : 9:05 PM
: 9:05 PM
Anon: "LBJ was the most corrupt "individual"..."
If by LBJ you ment Lady Bird Johnson I might agree with you.
If by LBJ you ment Lady Bird Johnson I might agree with you.
No, I meant his dog, Little Beagle Johnson. Really was the dog's name, look it up. Pretty sure it's the one he picked-up by his ears.
# posted by : 10:39 PM
: 10:39 PM
"Alan, kiss my ass you dickhead, sorry ER but he started it."
LOL
I suppose in your circle that's considered flirting, but sorry, I'm a married man. Perhaps you can convince another sheep to go home with you again? But probably only if you can get it drunk enough.
Heh. "he started it."
I'd suggest you're 4 years old if that wasn't an insult to 4 year olds. LOL
I shall give the random opinions of an anonymous coward on the internet all the consideration they're due.
Post a Comment
LOL
I suppose in your circle that's considered flirting, but sorry, I'm a married man. Perhaps you can convince another sheep to go home with you again? But probably only if you can get it drunk enough.
Heh. "he started it."
I'd suggest you're 4 years old if that wasn't an insult to 4 year olds. LOL
I shall give the random opinions of an anonymous coward on the internet all the consideration they're due.
<< Home
