Conquer Club

"Can Limbaugh get any lower"
discuss.

In one sense, he can only get within 3.5 feet of the ground lying down. In another sense, he has not depth to which he will not sink.

Nobunaga wrote:...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html


... Two questions.

... 1. With the econmy in its current state, do we want Obama and his aides wasting time dealing with a talk show host? It's politicking, great during campaigns, sure, but the campaign is finished. Should not the man in the White House be focused on much graver concerns? The economy is going to hell and the President is working on the "Limbaugh Problem".

... 2. Why is Limbaugh being used to push Republicans toward cooperation with the Democrats? (answers my first question, perhaps) The Dems don't need their votes and can pass anything they wish.

...

It's because of the massive amount of Republican dissent. Many Republicans are waking up....
Limbaugh is being used to kinda, fill in the void so-to-speak. That void where certian Republican leaders would feed the public the Republican line... Those leaders aren't buying it themselves, so they aren't going to propagandise the public, or work with the people they see as the enemy.
But people like Limbaugh and Hannity will.

This, IMO, is why Limbaugh is suddenly very important to the Republican Party. You'll probably see even more of this, maybe even in both major parties, as things get worse andd people get more and more disenchanted. Then Dems have a shield with their "unconditional love" of Obama though. But that's not to say that Pelosi isn't pulling Dems closer to her...

Napoleon Ier wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Exactly MeDeFe... a period of sustained deflation liquidating malinvestments is a necessary for full recovery.

Except there will hardly be a recovery this time, oh, the economy will pick up slightly again, but barely anyone will start hiring. The employees simply won't be needed, in fact, they already aren't, but firing everyone not strictly necessary and optimizing the existing lines of production would have caused too much of a fuss. With companies going bust left and right and losing a few hundred million US$ every month however... well, why employ people if you can install a robotic production line that manages twice the output and you only have to pay for it once, maintenance costs are negligible when compared to wages. Mid-term we'll have to get used to unemployment rates in the 20s, eventually they will go as high as 80%. Fewer and fewer people will be necessary to provide the goods and services that can possibly be consumed by everyone.

Work is fast becoming a thing of the past.

Take those 80% and treat them as a separate economy: can't they just start up their own chains of capital structure?

No, those 20% are already producing as much as the 100% can possibly consume. Adding even more production capacity would accomplish exactly nothing, except for a lot of unnecessary effort and wasted time and resources, because 80% of all production would go to waste and people in service occupations would mostly just be kicking their heels and killing time.

got tonkaed wrote:If i say something is debatable, i think your wrong.

*burns yellow tonka truck collection in effigy*----->

luns101 wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:If i say something is debatable, i think your wrong.

*burns yellow tonka truck collection in effigy*----->

yikes.

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Exactly MeDeFe... a period of sustained deflation liquidating malinvestments is a necessary for full recovery.

Except there will hardly be a recovery this time, oh, the economy will pick up slightly again, but barely anyone will start hiring. The employees simply won't be needed, in fact, they already aren't, but firing everyone not strictly necessary and optimizing the existing lines of production would have caused too much of a fuss. With companies going bust left and right and losing a few hundred million US$ every month however... well, why employ people if you can install a robotic production line that manages twice the output and you only have to pay for it once, maintenance costs are negligible when compared to wages. Mid-term we'll have to get used to unemployment rates in the 20s, eventually they will go as high as 80%. Fewer and fewer people will be necessary to provide the goods and services that can possibly be consumed by everyone.

Work is fast becoming a thing of the past.

Take those 80% and treat them as a separate economy: can't they just start up their own chains of capital structure?

No, those 20% are already producing as much as the 100% can possibly consume. Adding even more production capacity would accomplish exactly nothing, except for a lot of unnecessary effort and wasted time and resources, because 80% of all production would go to waste and people in service occupations would mostly just be kicking their heels and killing time.

So essentially, all wants are satisfied, and Capitalism has led society to Nirvana.

Err... powerful critique you got there, MeDeFe. Gee... I'm definitely joining the barricades now.

... Rush has challenged Obama to a debate. Of course it will never happen and Rush knows this, as such is beneath the office of the President, so Rush has offerred to debate the issues with the Ballerina, or any of President Obama's staff.

... That would be fun.

...

Up until recently it was beneath the President to directly address political commentators or non elected officials. That precedent went out the window when Obama stated that you can't listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done. Ironically this criticism has actually helped Limbaugh by bringing him front and center on the national stage, the old adage of any publicity is good publicity.

Despite this Obama is not going to take the chance of losing a debate with Limbaugh as he knows it would further elevate Limbaugh's status.

Rush already lost the debate --- it was called an election.

mpjh wrote:Rush already lost the debate --- it was called an election.

Errm. No. A debate and an election are two very different concepts, actually.

So... yeah. Wrong again, I'm afraid. Never mind though. Better luck with the half-arsed aiming-at-but-dismally-failing-to-be witty and pithy comments next time, eh?

GabonX wrote:Up until recently it was beneath the President to directly address political commentators or non elected officials. That precedent went out the window when Obama stated that you can't listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done. Ironically this criticism has actually helped Limbaugh by bringing him front and center on the national stage, the old adage of any publicity is good publicity.

Despite this Obama is not going to take the chance of losing a debate with Limbaugh as he knows it would further elevate Limbaugh's status.

A debate with Limbaugh would prove nothing except who supports Limbaugh and who supports Obama. The fabled "undecided" are in reality just people who don't really give a shit about politics. I'm pretty sure that a nationwide poll would show that a good sized majority of Americans think rather poorly of Rush. Haha, I'm kidding, half of America doesn't know who the first president was, let alone some radio pundit.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

mpjh wrote:Rush already lost the debate --- it was called an election.

Errm. No. A debate and an election are two very different concepts, actually.

So... yeah. Wrong again, I'm afraid. Never mind though. Better luck with the half-arsed aiming-at-but-dismally-failing-to-be witty and pithy comments next time, eh?

Here in America, we have debates as part of our electoral process, in fact many consider the entire process a debate. Nothing funny about that, and Rush's little candidate LOST the debate. Wait, maybe that is funny, 'cause it is making me laugh.

Yeah... quite apart from the validity of saying that an election is "the" debate and that anyone who wins it has a metaphysical justification from the vox populi to as he/she bloody well pleases being nil, I'm not sure I qualify a series of bare-faced demagogic lies attempting to appeal to the lowest common denominator of society being shouted from across podiums as a "debate".

But you're still welcome to sit there and chuckle a disjointed, boorish series of grunts from contentment at your weak thought-process, with your tongue hanging down the left side of your face drooling like a mongoloid if ti makes you feel any better.

Anyway. I'm off to a Latin Mass where I'm praying with Bishop Williamson for the conversion of the Jews, so cheerio, and we'll talk again when I feel like you've said something galactically stupid enough for me to want to have a good laugh at it or you actually come up wit something substantive and coherent.

Rush didn't have a candidate in the last election. He rallied people to vote against Obama but McCain was not his man. Had there have been a true conservative candidate that person would have received more votes. Palin was really the only reason he got as many votes as he did.

Yeah, drink that koolaide regularly, it will keep you thinking that way. Hope to see Rush, Sara, Bobby, and the whole hilarious crew next election. Please.

If you haven't noticed we live in a nation with cyclical political trends, and that nation did happen to elect George W. Bush. There will be more conservative presidents on par with Bush, Palin and the rest despite what Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow tell you.

If you god damned self proclaimed liberals push so hard so as to make the backlash a Rush Limbaugh presidency rest assured I'll kill all of you.

Figuratively speaking of course

First, there is no god, so he/she can't damn anything.

Second, I am not a liberal.

Third, Obama WON.

mpjh wrote: Third, Obama WON.

No shit?

I guess we just need accept in that case that any criticism leveled at him must be invalid and bigoted and probably racist, right? Especially since you have in fact, even capitalized the fact that he WON? Just to typographically emphasize the point that he like, totally WON. And that therefore he's right in every way and teh winrar. Am i rite?

Yeah, Obama won the election and is now the the President of the United States of America.

mpjh wrote:Yeah, Obama won the election and is now the the President of the United States of America.

Well, technically he isn't American and said the oath wrong, so he isn't. Plus, I herd hez a Muslim.

... Neil Boortz would be much more interesting.

... The President would be crying within 15 minutes.

... I love that guy.

... Michael Savage ... The Secret Service would have to tie him down before the debate began.

... Love that guy, too, if a little spooky.

....

I imagine exasperation would be a more likely expression than crying.

mpjh wrote:Yeah, Obama won the election and is now the the President of the United States of America.

Y'see, and another classic. There's the beauty with this guy, you can't tell if he's trying to be funny and failing like the awkward lanky kid who thinks he's clever but isn't and laughs at his own bad jokes predicated on pseudo-intellectual references he got from the one book he's read on the topic in politics lessons, or if he actually is taking this stuff at face value.

GabonX wrote:If you haven't noticed we live in a nation with cyclical political trends, and that nation did happen to elect George W. Bush. There will be more conservative presidents on par with Bush, Palin and the rest despite what Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow tell you.

If you god damned self proclaimed liberals push so hard so as to make the backlash a Rush Limbaugh presidency rest assured I'll kill all of you.

Figuratively speaking of course

Actually the "nation" didn't elect Bush the first time around - they elected Gore. Bush was slipped in there by the old Electoral College trick. The only reason they elected him the second time around was that he had them pissingintheirpants scared of terrorists. What a country.


Honibaz