When "Right" Isn't "Right"Posted Saturday, January 3, 2009, at 9:57 AM
"Rush Limbaugh" is now on KBOI...........hoopty-doo.
Unsurpassed in his own self-appreciation, this blowhard is on the local airwaves now, along with the GOOD ones like Paul J., Dennis Miller, Sean Hannity and Mike Savage. When he's not telling us all how MAGNIFICENT he and his show are, he promotes every candidate that has a (R) after his/her name. No Republican does any wrong in the eyes of Limbaugh Rush is like the typical Democrat, except in reverse. Never looks beyond party. For ME though, if I'm in the car at the time, it's merely at matter of switching to FM 99.1 and listening to the Oldies, which is where my dial is most of the time anyway. There is, and HAS been, a great liberal movement to get talk radio banned, under the guise of "The Fairness Act." The Dems already HAVE the mainstream media in their pockets, and want to close the deal, by closing the radio shows. Goebbels would have been proud. But with nitwits like Limbaugh promoting mavericks like McCain, I don't understand why the left would WANT to shut down talk radio................oops, I forgot about Hannity and Savage. As many of you know, I was solidly in Ron Paul's corner. When he was intentionally barred from some of the eastern debates, I KNEW Ron was the right guy. When he was mathematically out of it, and officially withdrew, I wasn't going to vote at all. For the first time in my life, I wasn't going to vote at all. In 2004, I didn't support Bush (as I was "supposed" to), nor would I vote for Kerry. I DID support the Constitutional Party candidate (whose name I can no longer pronounce). In 2008, there was NOBODY worthy of the office, who was still in the race. McCain is a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only), which in many ways, is WORSE than a Democrat. Obama is a typical anti-gun liberal with no experience anywhere else. Some of my Republican friends kept saying........"Mike, you've GOT to support McCain, to try to keep Obama out!" Nope...........I didn't support BUSH last time, and if the GOP can't put Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, or someone of that caliber, into that running slot, then we probably DESERVE to lose! Looking at it realistically, in the pack of jackals the Democrats have to choose from, Obama probably WAS the best they could do. The GOP doesn't have that excuse. We can do MUCH better than McCain and chose NOT to. Because there are still SOME principles and scrupples within OUR party, many right-wingers just sat-it-out, REFUSING to support someone who really isn't "one of us." And I was one of them. But then, McCain picked Sarah Palin to run WITH him. There is NO doubt of HER party affiliation, or her stand on our RIGHTS! Still...she'd only be the VICE President. But, we have a unique situation this time. McCain has health issues that might not withstand the pressures of the Oval Office......and if anything happens to "number one".................. If OBAMA pulls this off, the Secret Service is gonna have a tougher job than it's EVER had, protecting this guy. So WHOEVER wins this, it could VERY well end up in the hands of "number two." If you're a Constitutionalist, you'd MUCH rather have Palin than Biden..........so I bit my tongue and voted for McCain, just to get Sarah lined up, if it became necessary. Well, it's all turned to crap, and by the time they get done, we'll think we're in a red light district. And it will BE the "RIGHT" that's helped cause it. We've gotten away from our roots, trying to be "all things to all people", we've left the "A" Team on the bench, and sent all the substitutes out on the field, even with time in the 4th quarter running out. The "Republican" politicians out there have been turning into "Republicrats" and their own support doesn't trust them anymore.................and we all saw it go down in November. This is one time the "right".......wasn't "right"....and we're gonna pay for it...............oh and HOW...........we're gonna pay for it. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Job Description?(12 ~ 9:24 PM, Oct 28)
The Traitors........part one
Ninety-Nine and "Nighty-Night"
An Even Hundred Before I Go
The Traitors.......part III......brown or black?
|
Email link
Read comments (18)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mountainhomenews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
"There is, and HAS been, a great liberal movement to get talk radio banned, under the guise of 'The Fairness Act.' The Dems already HAVE the mainstream media in their pockets, and want to close the deal, by closing the radio shows. Goebbels would have been proud."
No, not true. Not even close. No committee is preparing to hear legislation to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine, no one has authored such legislation, no such legislation is scheduled for any vote. The closest the Fairness Doctrine has come to coming back is three or four members of the 535 members of congress saying nice things about it, and one of those three or four was Republican Lindsey Graham.
Second, the Fairness Doctrine shuts nothing down. All it requires is for broadcasts on public airwaves to give "both" sides of the story. Limbaugh, Hannity, and Michael Weiner - who can't even shoot straight about his own name - would be able to express their views as long as they gave equal time to an alternate viewpoint.
I don't support the Fairness Doctrine for a number of reasons. But I also don't support lying about the Fairness Doctrine to stoke the martyr complexes of the ignorant, narcissistic right.
Fairness Doctrine..........does that mean that Hannity and those like him would be given equal air time on TV against Blitzer and Matthews?
We both know better than that..........additionally, Hannity quite often dedicates a third of his show just for Liberals to call in, and he INSISTS that no one call in but liberals during this time slot. And this was long BEFORE anybody ever HEARD of the ACT.
Lindsey Graham just backs up what I said about "Republicrats." We even have GOP'ers who favor amnesty, led by McCain, who didn't pull his base.
I'm glad you don't support the Fairness Doctrine....for whatever reasons. I clash with my own party for my Pro-Choice stance, for good measure. I've supported various Democrats from time to time, as issues dictated.
But I wasn't taken in by the "second coming."
But Ex-Intern....this might sound a little strange even to YOU.......but I hope you're right about everything you've been saying. I honestly, sincerely DO hope you're right.
I would love NOTHING BETTER than to be wrong. You don't know how BAD I want you to be right, and me to be wrong!
Fact is, if your "party of change" DOESN'T tax us through the roof to pay for all of your golden boy's ideas.............if they DON'T CONTINUE the chipping away of our rights......if they DON'T put heavier restrictions against gun owners............if they DON'T virtually open the borders completely, I'll be the first to stand up and admit I was wrong, and I'll post it all over this net.
Are you willing to do the same, if I'M right?
PS........Mike, I am TRULY sincere about hoping you're right, because if you ARE, and the things I think will happen, do NOT happen, I'll be real content with that. So will a LOT of us.
Sometimes it's GOOD to be wrong, and I WANT to be wrong about this. I really do.
I don't think I AM though, and judging from the VOLUMES of fireams & ammo warehouses being depleted all over this country almost overnight, creating the backorders that now exist........I'm obviously NOT by myself here.
This intention to disarm the honest? You've got a computer, and you seem to enjoy coming up with names, dates, etc............check all of the antigun/anti ammo bans being proposed in the House and the Senate. Check the SPONSORS and SUPPORTERS...who are they?....and from WHICH side of the aisle?
This is NOT a trivial matter, but the first step to a total takeover and dictatorship. Both Obama and Biden are anti-gun (easily referenced by their voting records), and Obama will be in DIRECT VIOLATION of his own oath he will take on the 20th, whereas he promises to protect and defend our Constitution. He will have perjured himself before he ever takes his hand off the Bible (if that's the book he uses).
Take a look at the agenda on this....... both House and Senate......then come back and tell us all what you find.
Ex-Intern: The fairness doctrine when it was in place was never legislation. It was edict by the FCC, an un-elected self governing body whose leadership is appointed by the president. The current chairman Kevin Martin has already half-way brought the doctrine back by forcing stations to produce programs locally, and with many small stations, to do so will put them out of business because currently they have no on air staff, and cannot afford to hire local talent that is worth paying, so they will be faced with putting minimum wage DJ's on which will in turn hurt their ratings, then their sales, and they will go off air. (Of course the Where-Wolf will volunteer to be the unpaid local DJ and rescue these poor local stations but that is another matter entirely). Any time the government steps in and forces a business to behave in a certain manner (when they were law obeying to begin with) simply because they can, it's an immoral abuse of governmental power.
The Fairness Doctrine could be passed through legislation or by FCC decision. Chairman Martin is a Republican appointee who campaigned for Bush in 2000 - is that a "great liberal movement?"
The FCC has five commissioners. Obama gets to replace one this year and three in his second year. If Martin quits - which some seem to think he'll do - Obama will get to make that replacement. Two of the seats have to be held by Republicans. In what articles I've just now looked up, the names that are in the mix across the board are industry executives far more interested in expanding U.S. broadband capacity.
I've yet to see ANY source to support the theory Obama's FCC would have any more interest than the congressional leadership in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. It's all just speculation - like Joe Biden playing sick so Hillary Clinton can join the ticket at the last minute.
"Fairness Doctrine..........does that mean that Hannity and those like him would be given equal air time on TV against Blitzer and Matthews?"
I couldn't turn on Wolf Blitzer during the campaign without seeing McCain '08 staffer and former head of conservative lobby IWF Nancy Pfotenhauer, McCain '08 staffer Tucker Bounds or or Romney '08 staffer Kevin Madden - and he was offering right-wing perspective well after Romney bowed out.
I saw those three even more often on the cable news than I saw Ron Paul, who got far more media coverage than Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinich, Tommy Thompson, Chris Dodd, Tom Tancredo, Bill Richardson or Jim Gilmore, despite never really performing better than any of them in any polls or voting before the field whittled down to "McCain" and "someone else."
Anyways, its a moot point. Cable television transmits through private lines to an entirely voluntary audience.
And yes, I'm aware Paul wasn't matched up directly against any of those Democrats who performed no more abysmally poorly than he did over on their ballot, while getting a fraction of the media coverage.
I was speaking about Paul being left out of some GOP debates during the primaries. They didn't want the ENTIRE NATION to hear what he has to say, and what he's voted for. Democrats didn't want that, either.
Ron Paul was a direct threat to every corrupt, pinko bureaucrat in D.C.
Like Preston Tucker vs Detroit's "Big Three", Ron Paul HAD to be squelched.
Oh..and do you have any words of wisdom about the impending anti-gun legislature being readied for us?.......doesn't matter actually, I think I'll make it the subject of my next blog.
PS..."Michael Savage" is a "catchier" name than Mike Weiner...............Back in the 40's & 50's, a lot more kids went to the Saturday matinee to see a Roy Rogers movie, than might have gone to see "Leonard Slye"
And I think maybe Marion Morrison wouldn't have clicked with the western fans the way John Wayne did.
There's nothing wrong with using a "stage name"...a LOT of celebrities have done that in the past.
Mike:
I do not think you will have to post that you were/are wrong. Things are so far down the tubes that it will take the next 25 years to recover. Obama is not the "answer" and may very well top Carter as one of the "worst." Just what we need, borders open (come one come all) and MORE welfare. This is a nation fed on what can/will the Government do for me. We should be ashamed! I guess not since we encourage welfare----generation after generation of it. Now, we want "affordable" health care. The reason health care is so unaffordable is because of open borders and people with 7-8 kids and no education (and 7-8 different fathers who will NEVER EVER pay a dime in child support). Now, we want to create MORE welfare. I think we have more than enough already. More than enough. If you cannot stay off your back...stay off the rack. Pretty simple! There are pills for this also. Geez.
As far as "gun control" goes, it has worked so well for DC and Chicago. The gangs have more and better guns than the police do. Take a lesson from that "gun control." The criminals will always have the guns no matter what is done. I guess when all of our "rights" have been drafted away then we can sit here and ask "how did this happen?" Or, "I had no idea this was going on." Just like our local BS. Tax money spent to party by the county, being taxed for 8-9 years for NOTHING (and the tax went up for MORE of nothing) and now the nuclear thing. We need a lot less Government "control" and more common sense as a nation. The bail outs are proof of that. Oh, I forgot without all of that there would be record unemployment, people unable to keep their homes, banks going under, spa trips for CEO's and great retirement packages---oh wait, that is what is going on now. So, remind me again what has "changed" or helped the people?
Hmmmmm. Bill Richardson withdraws his bid to be commerce secretary because of a pending scandal of sorts. You are what you eat (so to speak). Obama's team sure is shaping up...to all end up in jail before Obabma ever takes office. Change we can believe in! Uh huh. Returning honesty and integrity to politics. When?
"so I bit my tongue and voted for"
Anyone who really supported the ideals of Ron Paul and of our Constitution would not have voted for Juan McAmnesty.
You can make as many excuses as you want, but when it came down to voting you were a sheep controlled by your Republicrat masters.
Too bad you were too weak to stand up and vote for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.
You post about the Civil War and then, when confronted with facts, it's suddenly "ancient history." You post claims about the Fairness Doctrine then someone questions your baseless speculation you want to move on to gun control. Never mind you're the one who brought up the Civil War or the Fairness Doctrine in the first place.
"and now the nuclear thing" - I'm curious Missy, did you vote for John McCain, the most pro-nuclear power candidate in U.S. history?
Yes Mike facts ARE facts. But the facts of 2009 and the facts of 1860 are two different things.
I'm putting something specual together just for YOU....complete with plenty of Congressional bill numbers you can reference. I'll have it posted withij the next few days!
Yeah Missy.......Bill Richardson's OK, ain't he? ANOTHER fine choice by the nitwit who can't make decisions!
Will it be a rehash of your Nov. 30 post where you report 18 STATE legislatures have pieces of legislation before them that require registration of ammo to be sold, then go on to say -
"Now, it would be virtually impossible for the FEDS (emphasis mine) to know about ammo we ALREADY have, but they could sure as heck ban manufacturing, or public sale of reloading components."
For someone who complains about others ignoring the Constitution so much I would've expected you to understand the difference between STATE and FEDERAL authorities. Maybe this time you'll actually dig up some examples of FEDERAL legislation or a proposed mandate by some other FEDERAL official-designate.
Then, in that Nov. 30's post's comments you return to one of your golden oldies - the weapons confiscated in New Orleans. Sometime I'll have to look into how widespread that actually was - some people got to keep their weapons, as this article from The Nation, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090105/th... suggests.
Maybe you missed it, maybe you were too burned out from insisting up and down that what these people did nobody today wants to do.
Oh NO, Mike...........I've got something really SPECIAL for you...........stay tuned.