el jefe

fairweather's posts are pure vogon poetry...

i've been there a couple of times but the majority of routes are over my head -- so to speak! anyway, sounds like we've done probably some of the same routes there and in a similar style: hanging on every bolt. i'm just yanking your chain, dude, so don't take it seriously. if your BAL weren't sub-therapeutic, you'd recognize this.

i'm probably not trying hard enough.

yes, but no one else has worked so hard to earn it.

"dope on a rope" would be a better title for this drivel...

nice work! way to get out after it.

the real laugh here is bedwetter presuming to speak for "thinking" people!

gravity is a relentless foe, lurking around every corner, waiting for its opportunity to pounce... good luck. broken bones take 4-8 weeks to heal in most circumstances.

the democrats aren't trying to marginalize rush limbaugh and they sure aren't attempting to silence him or in any way limit his right to free speech. instead, they are trying to place him front and center as the voice and de facto leader of the republican party; they are working to amplify his voice, not silence it. if this is bad for the republicans (and i believe it really hurts them), then the repubs need to grow some cajones and make it clear that rush doesn't speak for them. they are getting played by the democrats and i'm loving it because i believe the tables have finally been turned and the republicans are no longer in control of the terms of the debate. this is a refreshing change. nothing about this situation is in any way a threat to anyone's civil liberties. however, your desire to promote the notion that democrats in power aren't allowed to comment in this way is definitely an attempt to curtail the civil liberties of others. you want to talk like you are in favor of free speech while at the same time deciding who gets to talk and who doesn't. sounds like fascist behavior to me. you want everyone to agree with your "tsk, tsk, how unethical" crap when the tide is flowing opposite to what you want, but you stick your head in the sand and say "i wasn't on this forum" during the karl rove years, as if somehow one could only have learned about karl rove et al on cc.com! you need to grow some cajones if you are going to venture out onto the playground at lunchtime. you conservatives have become so accustomed to controlling the terms of the debate you have no idea what to do when you don't have your way, so please, go ahead and take your ball and go home. what is happening right now re: rush limbaugh and his role vis-a-vis the republifuck party is the democratic process at work. you are the one who wants to decide who gets the right to free speech and when.

i'm pretty sure that restaurant was rap-bolted, raindawg.

if the shoe fits, jmo, goose step in it. you conservatives like to pretend you believe in democracy, but the recent republifuck attempt to create a "permanent majority" was fascist to the core. wiretapping without a warrant and interring people at guantanamo without a trial/any legal proceeding whatsoever, extraordinary rendition, torturing prisoners -- that's the legacy of republifuck conservatism and it's also "forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism", so it's fascist. you guys also like to talk about "smaller government" but you don't practice it. the government is bigger and more in debt now after the past 8 years of republican domination. by the way, the soviet army also goose stepped so i could have been implying you were a commie, not a nazi.

ivan, what jmo wants is the one way street of fascism where the conservatives have free reign to behave however they want (since their agenda was sanctified by the baby jesus himself) and democrats are kept silent by some "ethical" code of conduct that amounts to simply "thou shalt not talk back." all of this justified, of course, by the fact that he wasn't he "wasn't very active on this board at the time of karl rove" (i.e., world history prior to jmo's activity on this board no longer exists and appeals thereto are essentially out of bounds). "dogging" the opposition is duty to country in a democracy. in the fascist, one-party world the right to oppose is "unethical".

i didn't accuse conservatives of being nazis, i said they were fascists. nazism was just one form of fascism. the american dictionary says fascism is "extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice." that's what i mean.

scooter libby, assistant to the pres of the united states george bush and chief of staff of vice president dick cheney, was convicted of releasing classified information to the press in an attempt to discredit an administration critic. besides, the democrats aren't currently attempting to discredit limbaugh. they don't want to silence him but rather they want to give him a megaphone with "voice of the republican mainstream" printed in large letters on the side for all to see. limbaugh has no credibility anyway. as i see it, the ball is the republifuck court: repudiate the toxic limbaugh or embrace him. it's their decision. also, let's be clear about something: libby wasn't convicted of a felony because his behavior was "unethical" but rather because it was illegal. legality and ethics are different things. you seem to want to argue that obama's people have to foreswear political allegiances once they take the reigns of government. this is incredibly naive. do you also believe the republican congessmen should be prohibited from voting as a bloc or criticizing the obama budget plan because they, too, are on the government payroll? give me a break. bipartisanship would be nice, but the repubs had a chance but refused to try. now you think the democrats have to continue to pursue bipartisanship even though the repubs have refused to engage in it? not likely. as rahm emmanuel said, the democrats only have to try bipartisanship, they don't have to succeed at it. it's been tried, the repubs declined to meet them halfway, so there we are. i say the democrat are right to let them have it.

i have no problem with this. republifuck mudslingers have engaged in this sort of behavior for decades. now that the democrats are doing it, the repubs suddenly start whining. i say tough shit, grow up. lee atwater, karl rove pulled all sorts of crap, where was your concern then? rush limbaugh is a clown and the repubs are too cowardly and/or stupid to distance themselves from him so the democrats are making political hay -- this surprises you? if you think this is a problem, advise the repubs to drop limbaugh. being on the government payroll didn't mean that karl rove suddenly had to become bipartisan, so why is that required of a democratic administration? if it's fair for one side, then it's fair for the other.

if i say the 'wall street urinal' is biased, how is that a "lie"? it's an opinion, not a lie. it's only a lie if i say it but don't believe it, but trust me, i believe the opinion page of the wsj is biased, and that's no lie. also, just because tvash and i are -- per your rather biased perspective -- "liberals", doesn't mean we need to get our ideas "coordinated". only you crypto-fascists believe everyone from the same end of the political spectrum needs to goose-step in unison.

no one is talking about making the rich into poor people, jmo. what we're talking about is "responsibility". why is it that warren buffett's secretary has to pay a higher percentage of his income than mr buffett does? if warren buffett paid the same percentage as his secretary that would hardly make him into poor man. he'll have plenty of money left over, far more than his secretary to be sure.

Why isn't it? If you think a mainstream publication like the WSJ is false, it's on you to prove. You all have pretty high standards for media. Basically, anything that doesn't add to your liberal propaganda isn't reputable. Plus, even Tvash says it is. i don't think it is "false", i think it is grossly biased. and the fact that it receives the tvash seal of approval means what, exactly? basically, anything that doesn't add to your crypto-fascist propaganda isn't reputable.

spoken like a born toady, fairweather.

better than your plan, kkk, which is to kiss their asses and hope they'll leave you a tip.

well said, j b!

since when is the 'wall street urinal' a 'reputable source'?

the investor class has been waging war on the rest of us. time to fight back, i say.

read brooks' column from earlier this week (3/3/09) "moderate manifesto": he clearly believes he is speaking from the "center".

david brooks calls himself a "moderate", but he's just a limp, conservative apologist for republican policies. i'd say he is certainly my least favorite n.y. times columnist after airhead william kristol and an extremely disappointing substitute for the retired safire. i didn't agree with safire's politics, but i respected his analysis and enjoyed his writing.