Discussion:Shoot in the foot dept.: Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> General Chat --> Shoot in the foot dept.: Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

15 August 2013
Can this even be true? Does this not exceed the immagination?

Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin (I am not familiar with him) as GOP presidential debate moderators. What has Fox News done to the Republicans? How much smoke can they pack up their posteriors and still enjoy it? I mean they act like they want to have smoke blown up their *****! They are literally addicted to it. Nothing but fiction and extremism would come out of such a debate structure.

Do the Republicans think the rest of the country is really as insane as they are? And I guess the idea is to roll this out on TV nationwide?

If the Elephants decide to do this, I hope they will agree to one, and only one, presidential primary debate among themselves. How could anybody even float such a self-destructive idea like this? Has the Party lost it's mind? Is Hillary behind this?

This is about as dumb as Obama having a spokesman making a comment about the disaster in Egypt while standing in front of a beutiful flowering tree or shrub at Martha's Vineyard. Again, what was Obama thinking? Get on a plane and head for Camp David and claim you are studying the situation, or fly back to the White House and leave the family at Martha's Vineyard.

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

15 August 2013
Why ever not? The FOX debate will resemble most powerfully the Mad Tea Party only the March Hare, the Mad Hatter and the Dormouse possessed impeccable, if unusual, manners. There is even Tea.

"In this style 10/6"

Markb29 (talk|edits) said:

15 August 2013
both parties are stupid - it has been a choice of "lesser evils" for some time - you pick your lesser evil, I pick mine.....

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

15 August 2013
Some Republicans actually think that the problem with their last primary debates was that they were tainted by liberal moderators.  :) No. The problem was with their candidates, and this was obvious to everyone BUT the Republicans.

Now do they really think that America wants to sit down to watch such a transparently "softball" fix as having Hannity and Limbaugh on the same panel? Then there is the significant danger that Rush will not be able to resist breaking into his radio personality and taking over the entire show. Rush could really throw a wrench into the works if he chose to do so and turn things into a three ring circus. It would either end up as a fixed game or a true lunatic fest.

Obama desparately needs to listen to the Nixon and Johnson White House tapes, because it is just possible that he would learn something. Both Nixon and Johnson worked the phones and their advisors all day long to keep their administrations on message. They never let up, even during the worst of times. The tapes are on the internet, but I guess Obama is too lazy to listen to them. The House is deadlocked, so this is Obama's excuse to drift and have fun, and Fail (miserably).

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

16 August 2013
Gazoo, have you(temporarily) regained your sanity?

MWPXYZ (talk|edits) said:

16 August 2013
RE gain?

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

16 August 2013
I have been consistently hard on Obama since he announed prior to his first election that "change is on the way" * , and then promptly appointed Larry Summers as an economic advisor, and nominated Geithner at Treasury and kept Bernanke on as Fed. Chairman. He appointed or reaffirmed three master enablers to clean up the disastrous "de-regulation" experiment on Wall Street.

I also roundly criticized him for not fighting enough for the public option, and for essentially taking a hands off approach to the drafting of a law that would come to bear his name: Obamacare. I still don't know if he's read the law. It's possible he's seen a one page briefing document on the law.

My final straw was his signing the December 2010 tax relief package so that he could leave more money to his daughters without the fear of paying estate taxes. This law will drain the national treasury of 698 billion dollars over ten years. He signed this tax bill into law while the U.S.A. was flat busted, and of course, none of the money saved by the wealthy will trickle down. The trickle down theory has always been a big lie. But I give Reagan credit, if you are going to tell a lie, tell a big lie. Go all in.

So why did I vote for Obama? Well, this would get me into the unpleasant subject of Mitt Romney. A combination God's man and worshiper of the golden calf. The only candidate the Republicans could put up who looked like you could take him home to mama (that is, at least he looked sane even though he wasn't, of course).

One thing I've learned from all this is that we need to stop electing presidents who have not served for a long time in either the House or the Senate or both, no matter what the political party. Both Johnson and Nixon had serious faults, but they knew how Washington worked and it gave them the experience, and the work ethic, and the gravitas to get things done.

P.S. Nixon took his share vacations and pleasure trips, but if he appeared before a camera to make an official statement while vacationing, he wore a suit and a tie, and I don't ever recall seeing him running around with sandals on while the cameras were rolling.

Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said:

16 August 2013
If RMN had shaved for the camera just one more time, he might have beaten JFK for the presidency.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

17 August 2013
If a man keeps himself busy hunting down commies and pinkos he doesn't have time for a shave.

Markb29 (talk|edits) said:

18 August 2013
If JFK had lost, who would we worship ?

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

20 August 2013
You'll have to address that question to Lyndon Johnson and a particular Texas oilman. At that time, we would have probably gone gaga over some baseball star if we hadn't had Kennedy.

I am really beginning to wonder about Obama. The attack on the the only press in the Western world that is actually doing any hard reporting right now (The Guardian) seems more extreme to me that what I remember of the Pentagon papers/NYT affair and Nixon.

It infuriates me that our government is putting on the act that they are livid about the release of classified information and procedures, when what they are really livid about is being caught with their pants down.

I read somewhere today that the Obama Administration is seeking permission in court to conduct warrantless searches of a physical cell phones (I guess they mean a cell phone with all the other gadgets in it). Unbelievable.

At what point do we recognize that the emperor is wearing no clothes, and we are not in danger of becoming a police state, but we are a police state?

By the way, was the closing of all those embassies overseas a week or two ago a false flag? I ask because Obama had some intelligence gurus from the Congress over to the White House, and then a few days later they rolled out "new intelligence" about a possible attack on U.S. embassies...of course the idea being that we would have never discovered it without the NSA.

Is Obama making Nixon look like a police state pussy cat? I knew I should have sat out the last election...it would not have done any good of course, but my conscience would have been easier now. Make no mistake, what is going on with the U.S. vendetta against The Guardian and Greenwald is meant to send a message to every U.S. reporter and news outlet: back off; go report on movie stars.

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

20 August 2013
Correction: "Prosecutors [Obama Administration] say Americans have "no privacy interest" in location records revealing minute-to-minute movements of their mobile devices, even when they're not in use." (From the article below).


Astounding. Let me say, it is not hard to get a warrant, but you just need probable cause. You just can't take a fishing expedition into a person's private life. Judges/magistrates are available 24/7 and they work out schedules to be available at night just like doctors do.

N.B. Your cell phone can be tracked when it's turned off if the battery is still in it. I would imagine it could still be tracked for a short time after the battery is removed. Again, no one here is a criminal, and I don't have anything to hide; it's the principle of the thing that irks me. There are core Constitutional principles that are being violated here.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

21 August 2013
Update: to fit in with Mr. Obama's "strong" show of leadership skills since his relection, the big news at the White House today was that the Obama's have a new expensive waterdog puppy to go along with their other high dollar water dog. This was the image beamed to the nation after the nation had just absorbed his vacation images.

By the way, I got "leadership skills" from Chris Matthews who said on NBC today that Obama's leadership skills are lacking. I'll say they are. Does anyone have a clue up there? Vacation images and then straight into designer dog images? Disaster. Unfathomable.

And David Gergen is probably too old now to come in and try to provide some adult guidance like he had to do to help Clinton.

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

27 August 2013

Ditherer-in-Chief Barrack Obama has finally decided to take action against Assad. Now the great plan is to ponder when exactly is the best time to strike, therefore giving Assad plenty of time to hide the good stuff.

The Ditherer-in-Chief still hasn't decided whether to appoint Summers to the Fed. or not. It's been the summer of Summers this summer: will he or won't he. More dithering. More pondering. More posturing. Will Obama appoint this one man disaster area as Fed. Chairman, and if he does, will Congress pass a bill so that FEMA can legally clean up the mess he is sure to make at the Fed?

(My guess is that Obama will appoint Summers this week before or during the distraction of the Big Strike on Assad).

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

1 September 2013
Can it get any worse? All this, and I understand that the President has in mind 15 cruise missles.  :) Of course, we don't know what the Air Force or Special Operations would do in conjunction with a cruise missle attack.

The truth is, we cannot afford to weaken Assad too much. Obama's mistake was to draw the "red line" in the first place, since he knew that it was very difficult to separate the good guys from the bad in Syria. (Or it might be better to say that there are no "good guys" in Syria.)

I saw on Drudge some commentator called this the "amateur hour". It certainly is. The President seems to be immune from embarassment (and so does Kerry). I mean Kerry is trying so hard to sell this "mini-strike" that it sounds like we are asking Congress to approve WWIII.

Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson on Bloomberg:


CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

6 September 2013
Quote: Can it get any worse?

Answer: Yes

Can it get any worse than this over a p*ss ant country where both sides are mainly the bad guys? What a bungle. What a national disgrace.

Presidential Playbook 101: When the Congress is giving you trouble, your foreign policy must shine. And if it don't, you get some old hands in there with some experience. I don't think Obama listens to his advisors, and he needs some gray hair in the White House.

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools