Not sure how many watched Bill Clinton on The Daily Show last night.
They mentioned repeatedly that the interview had been edited for length, but that the entire interview could be seen online at:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
I checked it out, and - Wow! - the entire interview is in THREE, count ’em THREE parts, totalling more than double the amount of time shown on the TV version.
In my opinion, the portions edited out include the most probing, in-depth and substantial content, perhaps reflecting the conservative dumbing down of America.
I strongly recommend watching the entire 3-part presentation online!
Friday, September 18, 2009
Rush ONLY speaks THE TRUTH, Obama wants to insure illegals
Rush said: Looks like Obama is going for broke now. He said, in so many words, that we can give health care to illegals by making them legal. He will have to run that through the congressional budget office to get a shiny new price tag for the deal.
Of course you are “paraphrasing,” Rush.
Of course you can’t provide the actual link or source of the actual statement.
Because you are a complete LIAR and you cannot restate his meaning honestly.
Cite the link, Rush, or admit you can’t.
You have a long, long, well-documented history of misrepresenting your own sources and other people you cite, taking their words out of context, “editing” the words selectively to often make them seem to say the OPPOSITE of what they actually said.
So if you can’t back it up, Rush, we know exactly why you can’t.
Every time a conservative has to make a “point” by lying, they are admitting that even they know that they cannot win any debate if they honestly engage on issues.
Even they are admitting that even they know that
THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND.
Of course you are “paraphrasing,” Rush.
Of course you can’t provide the actual link or source of the actual statement.
Because you are a complete LIAR and you cannot restate his meaning honestly.
Cite the link, Rush, or admit you can’t.
You have a long, long, well-documented history of misrepresenting your own sources and other people you cite, taking their words out of context, “editing” the words selectively to often make them seem to say the OPPOSITE of what they actually said.
So if you can’t back it up, Rush, we know exactly why you can’t.
Every time a conservative has to make a “point” by lying, they are admitting that even they know that they cannot win any debate if they honestly engage on issues.
Even they are admitting that even they know that
THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND.
What does Separation of Church and State mean anyway
Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.
[1] The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.
[2]A concept often credited to the English political philosopher John Locke
[3], the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.
The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.
This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.
[1] The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.
[2]A concept often credited to the English political philosopher John Locke
[3], the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.
The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.
This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to give election to Bush not 5-4
Ooopsie doopsie, Rush - still calling names, still can’t admit when you get caught in a litany of errors, still can’t get anything right.
Rationals got it right. The Supreme Court in Bush v Gore
7-2 that there was a violation of equal protection.
5-4 that it could not be remedied blocking any recount thus awarding the election to Boy Bush.
The actual decision?
No problem.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
Once again, you demand others post sources but YOU NEVER DO.
But the liberals come back, time after time, with precise sources.
What a pathetic, small man.
I just posted mine.
And you? Rush what is your source?
Zero. Zippo. Nada.
No wonder you can never admit you are wrong, or even be gracious in accepting when someone else does.
Because you are a pathetic, defensive, self-loathing racist and sexist.
Rationals got it right. The Supreme Court in Bush v Gore
7-2 that there was a violation of equal protection.
5-4 that it could not be remedied blocking any recount thus awarding the election to Boy Bush.
The actual decision?
No problem.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
Once again, you demand others post sources but YOU NEVER DO.
But the liberals come back, time after time, with precise sources.
What a pathetic, small man.
I just posted mine.
And you? Rush what is your source?
Zero. Zippo. Nada.
No wonder you can never admit you are wrong, or even be gracious in accepting when someone else does.
Because you are a pathetic, defensive, self-loathing racist and sexist.
Kooky czar says birth control could combat climate change
Rush asserts: "Now see, this is the kind of half-baked stuff I'd expect from a kooky science czar. Birth control could help combat climate change." He provides the following link:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9APOM880
Is this what he is reduced to?
In any case, the point does have some validity: if women don’t want to get pregnant, why not help them to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies through birth control, to prevent human overpopulation that harms both the climate and the environment.
And Rush doesn’t like this?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9APOM880
Is this what he is reduced to?
In any case, the point does have some validity: if women don’t want to get pregnant, why not help them to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies through birth control, to prevent human overpopulation that harms both the climate and the environment.
And Rush doesn’t like this?
He would rather see more ABORTIONS instead of BIRTH CONTROL?
Sorry, but Democrats know that, while we will always need ambulances at the bottom of the cliff (reactive cleanup measures), the most cost-effective measures are PROACTIVE (preventive) rather than REACTIVE.
No wonder Rush-style conservatives always end up with DEFICITS.
No Europe missle defense makes us less safe
What a load of your usual putrid BS, Rush.
There is no evidence whatsoever that “missile defense” (star wars) do anything to make anyone in America safer except the bank accounts of defense contractors lining up to feed at the public trough of CORPORATE WELFARE.
Only those dependent on CORPORATE WELFARE could support these absurd plans.
It is NOT a choice between Polish/Czechs and Russians (though only one of them has the power to drop nuclear bombs on us).
It is a choice between the most effective strategies to actually make us safer and more pork barrel CORPORATE WELFARE.
Why do you think you know more about this than Robert Gates?
Link to the official Dept of Defense “.mil” transcript of today’s press conference:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4479
Unlike you, I actually support my claims.
If you think anyone affords the slightest credibility to your baloney, your delusions are worse than previously considered.
There is no evidence whatsoever that “missile defense” (star wars) do anything to make anyone in America safer except the bank accounts of defense contractors lining up to feed at the public trough of CORPORATE WELFARE.
Only those dependent on CORPORATE WELFARE could support these absurd plans.
It is NOT a choice between Polish/Czechs and Russians (though only one of them has the power to drop nuclear bombs on us).
It is a choice between the most effective strategies to actually make us safer and more pork barrel CORPORATE WELFARE.
Why do you think you know more about this than Robert Gates?
Link to the official Dept of Defense “.mil” transcript of today’s press conference:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4479
Unlike you, I actually support my claims.
If you think anyone affords the slightest credibility to your baloney, your delusions are worse than previously considered.
Liberals complain about Reagan cutting spending
The rant from Rush is inaccurate in citing my past record, as to my positions and the content of my past postings in this forum.
I have not referenced with complaint Reagan’s “cutting spending.”
I have rightly criticized him for tax cuts favoring the rich, the failed policy of “trickle down” that fails each time it is tried, the absurd and much-discredited doctrine of “supply-side” economics to the exclusion of demand, and for the resulting economic downturns and budget deficits which were records for their time.
To Rush a greater effort for accuracy in citing others’ comments would be appreciated.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all.
I have not referenced with complaint Reagan’s “cutting spending.”
I have rightly criticized him for tax cuts favoring the rich, the failed policy of “trickle down” that fails each time it is tried, the absurd and much-discredited doctrine of “supply-side” economics to the exclusion of demand, and for the resulting economic downturns and budget deficits which were records for their time.
To Rush a greater effort for accuracy in citing others’ comments would be appreciated.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
