Saturday, March 07, 2009


Those poor Republicans.

With no leader in sight, the party of fools have picked idiot supreme Rush Limbaugh as their leader.

I mean, wasn't it bad enough they picked old daddy McCain and Caribu Barbie to rule the world?

I guess not.

I'm laughing every day.


Baxter said...

I'm not surprised. Socialists have ALWAYS laughed at Americans. But to believe Rush Limbaugh is the "defacto" leader of the Republican Party is like saying George Soros is the "defacto" leader of the Democrats. Oh...wait...bad analogy. Soros IS your party's leader!

None-the-less, Limbaugh is a political pundit, while B. Hussain (intentional "A") Obama is a political hack. It was your boy's decision to make Limbaugh an issue to divert attention away from the present cabinet's attempt to "steal" America away from the people. That is almost the only thing the major news media has gotten right since Jan. 20th.

The Democrates want this Nation to be under Socialist rule, and thier oreo is just the talking head to get it done. When all is said and done, we may see the beginning of the race wars Nietschke wrote about in his Orwellian prophecies.

Anonymous said...

wow - Baxter is not only a racist, he's fucking nuts.

Charlie Hobart said...

Baxter indeed made several ridiculous and inflammatory remarks, but I'm afraid he's correct in his accurate assessment of Limbaugh's status as political pundit and NOT a party leader.

Limbaugh isn't the leader of the Republican party. They simply don't have one to begin with, and if they did it wouldn't be a guy on the radio. I think Newt Gingrich may eventually fill the vacuum but it's too early to tell.

The Democrats are intentionally trying to lump the opposition with Limbaugh and thus equate the opposition's (valid) spending concerns with that of a right-wing blowhard.

The White House shouldn't be picking fights with influential political commentators. It demonstrates a lack of confidence and an essential misunderstanding of political power. Rove and Bush already proved to us the dangers of such nefarious machinations throughout the past 8 years, and look where that got us?

We don't need (or want) to go through this shit all over again. Obama promised to rise above it, and though I think he will successfully do so in the long run, he's made a serious misjudgment on this particular issue.

We're in a moment of dire financial crisis. Let's leave the petty BS behind and start solving our problems before we ALL end up in the bread lines.....

Anonymous said...

After Heath Ledger’s family stepped up on stage to accept his Best Supporting Actor Oscar, I think most assumed the award would stay with them. Not so fast, he has a daughter.

The Oscar belongs to his next of kin, in this case his daughter Matilda. Matilda however is only 3 so the statue will be entrusted to her mother, Heath’s ex-fiance Michelle Williams, until Matilda is 18. Williams will have ownership of the trophy until then, and the LA Times reports that the trophy will be presented to her next week.

The trophy is currently in the hands of the Ledger estate, which will bring the statuette you saw on stage with Ledger’s parents in for attachment of the engraving plate, after which it will be handed over to Michelle.

It seems the Academy’s rules are pretty strict in this instance, though it seems somewhat odd to think of Ledger’s statue being handed over to a woman he broke up with before his death. While there’s every reason to think Michelle will take great care of it for her daughter, somehow it just seemed right, seeing it there on stage in the hands of his family, imagining them guarding it until Matilda was ready to hear the life story of her amazing father from the people who loved him most.

Baxter said...

I have to admit Charlie's right. I get a little raucous in my responses sometimes, but this is the perfect forum to do that (fuck, I love this blog!).

However, I disagree with his belief that Obama will eventually get things straightened out. He actually has zero experience delegating the authority needed by a President. He hasn't even attempted to make any non-partisan decisions as he claimed he would during his campaign. Every choice he's made thus far (and I realize he's only been in office for less than 100 days) has been right down the Democratic party line. Personally, and professionally I don't see him altering that trend.

This nation is heading for socialism. If you think: "Well, THAT can't happen. THIS is America", then you're dead wrong. Woodrow Wilson almost had it done. If it weren't for him being voted out of office, we would already be under an open Socialist government. Mussolini, and later Hitler, envied Wilson for his "progressive minded governing". Wilson had what could essentially be called "brute squads" to pressure those he deemed to be domestic threats to his overall plan for America. This actually predated the rise of communism in the USSR, and was again a model for Stalin.

I'm not saying Obama will get that far, or that he even has the ability given the division in this nation, but the possibility is there. The assault on Conservative Talk Radio is just the beginning. Most readers here may hate the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Reagan, et al, but do you really want them gone from the air waves?

Obama has said that he has no interest in reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine", so Conservatives shouldn't worry about losing thier voice, but then he's rattified bail-outs totalling how many hundreds of billions of dollars to (supposedly) save the economy? PBS (liberally owned, and operated hides behind a thin VEIL of non-patisan reporting), NBC, ABC, CBS, and all of thier affiliates are alraedy in the bag, so the last bastion of Conservative thought remains Conservative Talk Radio. Hell, FOX News isn't even all that Conservative if you actually pay attention.

Now with these bailouts reaching many radio stations across the nation, the government will be in part ownership of these. The pressure from Government officials (ie: Democrat) to air a more balanced forum of Conservative/Liberal programming would ultimately eliminate discourse on the radio.

The banks are now largely under government ownership, what with the billions they've received to stay afloat. Government owned banking IS Socialism. President GW Bush signed the first one, and I didn't like it. Obama's followed suit with nearly twice as much guarenteed money for the banks, and I don't like that. I have opinions on what SHOULD have been done by the government, and I honestly believe that the recession we're in now would have been shorter than what we're going to experience, but who am I? I'm looked at as a "hired hand", and nothing more. My voice isn't even considered, and neither is yours (whoever's reading this).

So it's an every man for himself situation, here. Either that or blindly follow the administration, because they'll eventually give you what you need to survive.