I HATE Rush Limbaugh

Rob Henderson said:
03USMC: I wasn't speaking to you, and I'm sure he doesn't need you coming to his defense. He seems perfectly capable of responding to my posts. So you can get the hell over ME.
Click to expand...


I don't give a warm bucket o' piss who you were addressing Henderson, I wasn't coming to his defense I was advising him you are a stone headed liberal moron with no real world back ground, with no reference point boy. So take your your attitude and stuff it Sonny.

BTW you ain't got nothing to get over . Your a College kid that likes to hear himself gab......equals secure dumbazz, have a nice day.
 
03USMC said:
I don't give a warm bucket o' piss who you were addressing Henderson, I wasn't coming to his defense I was advising him you are a stone headed liberal moron with no real world back ground, with no reference point boy. So take your your attitude and stuff it Sonny.

BTW you ain't got nothing to get over . Your a College kid that likes to hear himself gab......equals secure dumbazz, have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Obviously college is teaching me something... I don't want to count the number of typos and grammatical mistakes in that "paragraph." LOL

He's perfectly capable of fighting his own battles. "Advising him" on something was not needed. I'm sure he could figure out my political compass by reading my posts, most people do.

You can get on to me as much as you want, it's not going to hurt my feelings or something, so I really don't understand why you do... It's like you have some sort of compensation issues... Why else would you be putting yourself on the same level as a 19 year old boy?





Bacara said:
one problem with this its wikipedia, and alot of it was about the critisms of the plan, that it didnt help the depression if not worsened it and yes i know my history
Click to expand...
Yes, it IS Wikipedia, and most of the things on Wikipedia now have citations at the bottom. That's what the little numbers mean. ;)


If you read it, then you already know about this section...

The Depression continued with decreasing effect until the U.S. entered the Second World War in December 1941. Under the special circumstances of war mobilization, massive war spending doubled the GNP (Gross National Product)[53] Civilian unemployment was reduced from 14% in 1940 to less than 2% in 1943 as the labor force grew by ten million. Millions of farmers left marginal operations, students quit school, and housewives joined the labor force. The effect continued into 1946, the first postwar year, where federal spending remained high at $62 billion (30% of GNP).[54]
The emphasis was for war supplies as soon as possible, regardless of cost and efficiencies. Industry quickly absorbed the slack in the labor force, and the tables turned such that employers needed to actively and aggressively recruit workers. As the military grew, new labor sources were needed to replace the 12 million men serving in the military. These events magnified the role of the federal government in the national economy. In 1929, federal expenditures accounted for only 3% of GNP. Between 1933 and 1939, federal expenditure tripled, but the national debt as percent of GNP hardly changed. However, spending on the New Deal was far smaller than spending on the war effort, which passed 40% of GNP in 1944. The war economy grew so fast after deemphasizing free enterprise and imposing strict controls on prices and wages, as a result of government/business cooperation, with government subsidizing business, directly and indirectly.

But, that says that government/business cooperation made the economy GROW, so that can't be right! De-emphasizing free enterprise?! That's BLASPHEMY! No good can come from that! Hahahahahaha!!!
 
03USMC said:
I don't give a warm bucket o' piss who you were addressing Henderson, I wasn't coming to his defense I was advising him you are a stone headed liberal moron with no real world back ground, with no reference point boy. So take your your attitude and stuff it Sonny.
Click to expand...

If I had to give a buck every time you struck the nail on the head I'd qualify for some kind of major bail out plan. :lol:
 
Rob Henderson said:
Obviously college is teaching me something... I don't want to count the number of typos and grammatical mistakes in that "paragraph." LOL

He's perfectly capable of fighting his own battles. "Advising him" on something was not needed. I'm sure he could figure out my political compass by reading my posts, most people do.

You can get on to me as much as you want, it's not going to hurt my feelings or something, so I really don't understand why you do... It's like you have some sort of compensation issues... Why else would you be putting yourself on the same level as a 19 year old boy?
Click to expand...


Have I told you your are butt munch yet? gRAMM-AT -IC AL errors that's what you got you lil' weasel?

I'll interject any damn where I please and fark you if you don't like it.

I like to fark with you cause your a little know it all liberal with no real world to back you up.. If you were half as smart as you think you are you'd be King of the world.

Compensation issue's? No I just think your a dumb lil' boy who hasn't had reality smack him in the face yet.
 
Last edited:
Rob Henderson said:
Obviously college is teaching me something... I don't want to count the number of typos and grammatical mistakes in that "paragraph." LOL

He's perfectly capable of fighting his own battles. "Advising him" on something was not needed. I'm sure he could figure out my political compass by reading my posts, most people do.

You can get on to me as much as you want, it's not going to hurt my feelings or something, so I really don't understand why you do... It's like you have some sort of compensation issues... Why else would you be putting yourself on the same level as a 19 year old boy?





Yes, it IS Wikipedia, and most of the things on Wikipedia now have citations at the bottom. That's what the little numbers mean. ;)


If you read it, then you already know about this section...

The Depression continued with decreasing effect until the U.S. entered the Second World War in December 1941. Under the special circumstances of war mobilization, massive war spending doubled the GNP (Gross National Product)[53] Civilian unemployment was reduced from 14% in 1940 to less than 2% in 1943 as the labor force grew by ten million. Millions of farmers left marginal operations, students quit school, and housewives joined the labor force. The effect continued into 1946, the first postwar year, where federal spending remained high at $62 billion (30% of GNP).[54]
The emphasis was for war supplies as soon as possible, regardless of cost and efficiencies. Industry quickly absorbed the slack in the labor force, and the tables turned such that employers needed to actively and aggressively recruit workers. As the military grew, new labor sources were needed to replace the 12 million men serving in the military. These events magnified the role of the federal government in the national economy. In 1929, federal expenditures accounted for only 3% of GNP. Between 1933 and 1939, federal expenditure tripled, but the national debt as percent of GNP hardly changed. However, spending on the New Deal was far smaller than spending on the war effort, which passed 40% of GNP in 1944. The war economy grew so fast after deemphasizing free enterprise and imposing strict controls on prices and wages, as a result of government/business cooperation, with government subsidizing business, directly and indirectly.

But, that says that government/business cooperation made the economy GROW, so that can't be right! De-emphasizing free enterprise?! That's BLASPHEMY! No good can come from that! Hahahahahaha!!!
Click to expand...
Actually the economy started dropping again in the late 30s, some New Deal polocies were trimmed back & the economy went down showing that the New Deal was artificialy supporting the economy & not providing a real base for growth.
 
"Civilian unemployment was reduced from 14% in 1940 to less than 2% in 1943 as the labor force grew by ten million."


Yes, the New Deal was trimmed down, and no one could argue that the entire program was successful, but programs like TVA, SSC, SEC, etc are still operating today... Clearly showing that some of the programs were genuinely helping the economy.
 
Rob Henderson said:
"Civilian unemployment was reduced from 14% in 1940 to less than 2% in 1943 as the labor force grew by ten million."


Yes, the New Deal was trimmed down, and no one could argue that the entire program was successful, but programs like TVA, SSC, SEC, etc are still operating today... Clearly showing that some of the programs were genuinely helping the economy.
Click to expand...

when the new deal was in place the economy went down, all the stats say it did
 
What stats? Could you post a source for your comments? Because the stats I've POSTED LINKS TO say that the New Deal, in addition to the war, boosted the economy.
 
Rob Henderson said:
Not so much the light-skinned part so much as the "No Negro dialect" part...

I mean, he DOES speak well, but there's no reason to say it like that... Simply say "He speaks very well." No need for bringing race into it. But light-skinned African-American is simply descriptive, not racist.
Click to expand...

Actually he probably should have not said that part. I do think however that Obama DOES speak English very good, and unfortunately the people in this country that butcher the language are not of any particular race or color.
 
Another fan of Rush ... yes he is misquoted frequently. It's either on purpose or the liberals at AP or another news source (Huffington post is NOT news ... it's liberal hate speech) are idiots and they are too anxious to run a negative story on Rush. Remember the "I hope Obama fails" bit? He gave a speech for an hour and the media takes a 15 second sound bite out of context and twists it into essentially "Rush wants America to fail." That one had my mother in a rage for days.

But I don't listen to him much anymore ... once in a while if I have the day off and remember to tune in. Oh, and Rush made a list of the top 10 U.S. celebrities who give to charities ... the same list Oprah is on. Yeah, what a rotten prick he is.

Anyway, I like Glenn Beck better ... he's more positive and easier to like. And I don't think he's faking it. I think his alcoholism has humbled him ... and made him very emotional. That kind of thing happens to people who go through life-altering experiences (surviving cancer, loss of loved ones, etc ...) and come out humbled.

I love how liberal kids rant and rave about Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc ... They don't remember what it was like in the early 90s. There was no internet ... just a bunch of liberal newspapers, liberal news magazines and liberal TV news shows. You got one point of view ... period. Think that's good for democracy?

I used to tune into This Week with David Brinkley" Sunday morning just to hear George Will's (unusual) common sense once each week. It was slim pickins' in those days.
 
He He he, I hate Whoopi Goldberg, there I said it, not because she's black, a woman or has a really irritating voice - it is because she is c-!p. Now that is my opinion, others can hold different ones, those opinions are informed by different information sources - I hope!!

What scares me is that so many people can only quote 1 source for their information and they cannot separate opinion from fact, normally given by the telly pundits and taken as gospel.

I don't agree with Rush, but he's made a living out of his opinion, it doesn't mean that his should carry more weight than Steve down the pub, but a lot of people think it should!!

USA is a democracy and allows free speech, those that tap into strong public feelings will do well in the media, or those that tap into the most active base - sad but true. At the end of the day Rush may have 1 million people listen to him, but what are the other 364 million in the US doing? Is he inspiring them?

Just my thoughts, btw Whoopi isstill not in my top 6 billion people, but that is my opinion.
 
Bror Jace said:
Another fan of Rush ... yes he is misquoted frequently. It's either on purpose or the liberals at AP or another news source (Huffington post is NOT news ... it's liberal hate speech) are idiots and they are too anxious to run a negative story on Rush. Remember the "I hope Obama fails" bit? He gave a speech for an hour and the media takes a 15 second sound bite out of context and twists it into essentially "Rush wants America to fail." That one had my mother in a rage for days.

But I don't listen to him much anymore ... once in a while if I have the day off and remember to tune in. Oh, and Rush made a list of the top 10 U.S. celebrities who give to charities ... the same list Oprah is on. Yeah, what a rotten prick he is.

Anyway, I like Glenn Beck better ... he's more positive and easier to like. And I don't think he's faking it. I think his alcoholism has humbled him ... and made him very emotional. That kind of thing happens to people who go through life-altering experiences (surviving cancer, loss of loved ones, etc ...) and come out humbled.

I love how liberal kids rant and rave about Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc ... They don't remember what it was like in the early 90s. There was no internet ... just a bunch of liberal newspapers, liberal news magazines and liberal TV news shows. You got one point of view ... period. Think that's good for democracy?

I used to tune into This Week with David Brinkley" Sunday morning just to hear George Will's (unusual) common sense once each week. It was slim pickins' in those days.
Click to expand...
Where do I even begin.

If I want Saddam Hussein to fail, if I want the Ayatollah to fail, if I want Breznev to fail, I want the country they're from to fail. If the country succeeds, that's because the leader succeeds. If the country fails, it's the failure of leadership. Wishing failure to Obama is wishing failure on America.

Yeah, Glenn Beck is so positive. He has the cutest smile when he denounces the Democrats as evil communist haters of America.

Liberal Newspapers... you mean like the Wall Street Journal? New York Times perhaps? Sure, the Times may be considered liberal now but for decades it was the most conservative paper in the US. Evidently you think opinion and spin columnists on news shows are good for democracy, even though they report no news and spin the facts to support their own twisted agendas. They don't source stories, they don't report the full stories, they make up crap as they go, and you think THAT is good for democracy? It's not news, though it pretends to be it. Tuning into a "news" station I expect to get news, not political spin, and so do others. If a news source has a man saying something, I expect him to be reporting the facts, not his version of the facts.

News should not be slanted. It should be news. It USED to be news, but now it's so mired with political spin that you can't find the truth in its midst. THAT is bad for democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top