Why won't these sluts vote for us?

[SrslySirius]

I just don't understand it. We're only getting 39% of the vote from broads. Meanwhile Sandra Fluke is at the DNC boasting about how much she loves to whore herself out and claiming that Republicans don't respect women. Jesus, what a crock. The negros are a lost cause, but what's it going to take to get these skanks out of the kitchen and into the booths voting on our side?

[Dan Druff]

I just don't understand it. We're only getting 39% of the vote from broads. Meanwhile Sandra Fluke is at the DNC boasting about how much she loves to whore herself out and claiming that Republicans don't respect women. Jesus, what a crock. The negros are a lost cause, but what's it going to take to get these skanks out of the kitchen and into the booths voting on our side?

Make fun of Rush all you want, but he was in a large part responsible for the sweeping Republican victories of 1994.

Rush and Newt pretty much owned the entire Democratic party that year.

[Dan Druff]

Also, it's important to understand that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, and not a politician.

[DirtyB]

I just don't understand it. We're only getting 39% of the vote from broads. Meanwhile Sandra Fluke is at the DNC boasting about how much she loves to whore herself out and claiming that Republicans don't respect women. Jesus, what a crock. The negros are a lost cause, but what's it going to take to get these skanks out of the kitchen and into the booths voting on our side?

Make fun of Rush all you want, but he was in a large part responsible for the sweeping Republican victories of 1994.

Rush and Newt pretty much owned the entire Democratic party that year.

That was 18 years ago.

[pikachar]

That was 18 years ago.

Not if you have one of these....

 

[Steve-O]

I just don't understand it. We're only getting 39% of the vote from broads. Meanwhile Sandra Fluke is at the DNC boasting about how much she loves to whore herself out and claiming that Republicans don't respect women. Jesus, what a crock. The negros are a lost cause, but what's it going to take to get these skanks out of the kitchen and into the booths voting on our side?

Make fun of Rush all you want, but he was in a large part responsible for the sweeping Republican victories of 1994.

Rush and Newt pretty much owned the entire Democratic party that year.

You're being results oriented imo

[Steve-O]

Also, it's important to understand that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, and not a politician.

I hate when people try to make this arguement, whether it's for Bill Maher or someone like Rush. They are political commentators not entertainers; they are talking about real life not portraying some fictional character. Yes people tune in because they are occasionally funny or entertaining, but the main reason people listen/watch these shows is to get their highly skewed opinions on the world.

Calling someone an entertainer conjures images of tap-dancing and singing, not of someone doing political commentary. There is a difference between doing a "two guys walk into a bar" joke, and being a political satirist. Bill Maher is "technically" a comedian, but when he hosts Real Time he is being a political commentator discussing serious issues: Rush is technically a radio personality, but his show focuses on serious, real-world, political policy. Any entertainment from these shows is just a means to an end. In this case to espouse their political views to like-minded people.

[Texter]

dude makes serious coin.

[Faduniak]

[gut]

Also, it's important to understand that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, and not a politician.

I hate when people try to make this arguement, whether it's for Bill Maher or someone like Rush. They are political commentators not entertainers; they are talking about real life not portraying some fictional character. Yes people tune in because they are occasionally funny or entertaining, but the main reason people listen/watch these shows is to get their highly skewed opinions on the world.

Calling someone an entertainer conjures images of tap-dancing and singing, not of someone doing political commentary. There is a difference between doing a "two guys walk into a bar" joke, and being a political satirist. Bill Maher is "technically" a comedian, but when he hosts Real Time he is being a political commentator discussing serious issues: Rush is technically a radio personality, but his show focuses on serious, real-world, political policy. Any entertainment from these shows is just a means to an end. In this case to espouse their political views to like-minded people.

As much as I love his show, Jon Stewart is a major offender of this also. He obviously uses his show as a platform for a certain viewpoint, but when he is interviewed elsewhere and is getting challenged he will often revert to the "hey, I'm just a comedian with a show on comedy central."

[Yebsite]

Make fun of Rush all you want, but he was in a large part responsible for the sweeping Republican victories of 1994.

Rush and Newt pretty much owned the entire Democratic party that year.

That was 18 years ago.

finally a decent barry post...

[ErickAA]

Most of the sloots voted for Barrack last term, and you know what they say, once you go black...

[Dan Druff]

When I say "Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer", I mean that his primary goal is to keep an audience and drive up his ratings. While he is actually offering commentary on serious political issues and has a lot of influence, that doesn't give him a moral obligation to always act proper.

Rush rose to prominence in the early '90s because he was really good at explaining conservative politics to the average, non-political person, and could be entertaining while doing so. The left never found a radio answer to Rush, because they simply didn't have someone who could do it as well as he did.

If Rush was always dry, matter-of-fact, and non-controversial, he would have faded out and disappeared many years ago. His sometimes-outrageous comments are what keep people tuned in. Most of them are generally harmless or tend to go after brash leftist politicians, so they don't make news. In the case of his "slut" remark, it was a huge misfire, especially because he went after an ordinary citizen and not an obnoxious politician. In Rush's defense, when you talk for three hours per day, 5 days a week, you are likely to screw up at some point if your show is built upon edginess and controversy.

The bottom line is that an elected official has a responsibility to always act in a dignified manner. An entertainer has no such responsibility. An entertainer's #1 priority is to get ratings and stay relevant.

This why I also understand the antics of leftist talk show hosts such as Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. I don't like either of them, but I understand why they say outrageous things in order to keep an audience. Maher is actually more guilty of this, while Stewart pretends to be lampooning all politics, but in reality is a huge Obama asskisser.

[Dan Druff]

Make fun of Rush all you want, but he was in a large part responsible for the sweeping Republican victories of 1994.

Rush and Newt pretty much owned the entire Democratic party that year.

You're being results oriented imo

No, I'm not.

1994 was the last time Republicans really did things correctly. I knew they would crush that election without even looking at the polls. Newt Gingrich said all of the right things to appeal to America's moderate voters, while Rush hammered the message home on a daily basis to his huge audience. Democrats were out of touch with the public's frustration with crime, taxes, and Bill Clinton's liberal agenda, and Republicans were saying all of the things that mattered.

Even more important, Newt united the Republican Party and put a temporary end to the infighting. This allowed the Republican message to be clear, and presented a united front.

Unfortunately, Newt is better with ideas and concepts than actually governing and working with others. That's why his popularity fell so quickly, and he basically fell off the radar until his weird 2011 comeback.

Note that I am not praising Republicans for their much more recent big victory -- the 2010 midterms. This is because they succeeded in spite of themselves, more lucking into wins due to frustration with Obama and the economy. In fact, Republicans threw away three easy Senate wins (including Nevada) by tossing up terrible Tea Party candidates instead of safe ones who could have defeated the weak Democratic contenders. I was so disgusted when Harry Reid won again, given the hatred that exists in Nevada for him.

[Wiganer]

The rest of the world looks at you lot about to potentially pick Romney over Obama and thinks you're fucking mental.

Then again you probably think the rest of the world is wrong, don't you?

[Dan Druff]

The rest of the world looks at you lot about to potentially pick Romney over Obama and thinks you're fucking mental.

Then again you probably think the rest of the world is wrong, don't you?

The rest of the world has no clue about Americans or American politics.

I talk to foreigners about the US sometimes, and it's amazing the ignorance that is displayed (and they often beileve they are 100% correct).

One big reason for this is the fact that many Europeans incorrectly equate the US with their country. For example, ask the average European what he thinks of full gun control, and he will tell you that it's a splendid idea. Ask the average American the same thing, and all but the biggest leftists will tell you that it would be a disaster.

That's because the Europeans think of their own crime situation, and have a hard time reconciling the fact that America's is much different. Guns are too ingrained in America's culture, and removing them from the hands of average citizens would simply leave the guns with the criminals. Most Europeans don't understand this. They believe that full gun control would simply remove all guns from American society.

I don't comment much on European political issues because I have never lived in Europe. I don't pretend to understand European life. Europeans should not pretend to understand Americans.

[Wiganer]

The rest of the world looks at you lot about to potentially pick Romney over Obama and thinks you're fucking mental.

Then again you probably think the rest of the world is wrong, don't you?

The rest of the world has no clue about Americans or American politics.

I talk to foreigners about the US sometimes, and it's amazing the ignorance that is displayed (and they often beileve they are 100% correct).

One big reason for this is the fact that many Europeans incorrectly equate the US with their country. For example, ask the average European what he thinks of full gun control, and he will tell you that it's a splendid idea. Ask the average American the same thing, and all but the biggest leftists will tell you that it would be a disaster.

That's because the Europeans think of their own crime situation, and have a hard time reconciling the fact that America's is much different. Guns are too ingrained in America's culture, and removing them from the hands of average citizens would simply leave the guns with the criminals. Most Europeans don't understand this. They believe that full gun control would simply remove all guns from American society.

I don't comment much on European political issues because I have never lived in Europe. I don't pretend to understand European life. Europeans should not pretend to understand Americans.

We understand Americans' problems with irony.

[Steve-O]

The rest of the world looks at you lot about to potentially pick Romney over Obama and thinks you're fucking mental.

Then again you probably think the rest of the world is wrong, don't you?

The rest of the world has no clue about Americans or American politics.

I talk to foreigners about the US sometimes, and it's amazing the ignorance that is displayed (and they often beileve they are 100% correct).

One big reason for this is the fact that many Europeans incorrectly equate the US with their country. For example, ask the average European what he thinks of full gun control, and he will tell you that it's a splendid idea. Ask the average American the same thing, and all but the biggest leftists will tell you that it would be a disaster.

That's because the Europeans think of their own crime situation, and have a hard time reconciling the fact that America's is much different. Guns are too ingrained in America's culture, and removing them from the hands of average citizens would simply leave the guns with the criminals. Most Europeans don't understand this. They believe that full gun control would simply remove all guns from American society.

I don't comment much on European political issues because I have never lived in Europe. I don't pretend to understand European life. Europeans should not pretend to understand Americans.

Really, like your swedish unsolved murder rates comments? No offense, but you tend to comment on anything and everything, and I'm sure anyone with more time than me can go through your political posts and find multiple Euro references.

First of all I'm very pro gun, but to say that ramping up gun laws would be a disaster is frankly stupid, because you're basing it on nothing but your own thoughts on the matter. How would it be a disaster? has it been attempted before, either here, or in another country that had lax gun laws and tightened them up? How do you balance this with the fact that different states have vastly different gun laws, and there is no evidence that tighter restrictions are disastrous? Massachusetts is not overrun with a problem of only criminals having guns despite really strict gun laws.

Second, how can you say Europeans don't understand the US, and then go on to say you don't claim to comment on European politics because you don't know enough about them? Wouldn't this imply that you don't know what Europeans know or don't know about the US? And how does an uninformed Euro's opinion on gun laws (or social security) differ from an uninformed US resident? I would bet that the average follower of politics in Belgium knows more about US policy than an uninformed US voter who watches 30 minutes of news before Leno.

[Dan Druff]

The rest of the world has no clue about Americans or American politics.

I talk to foreigners about the US sometimes, and it's amazing the ignorance that is displayed (and they often beileve they are 100% correct).

One big reason for this is the fact that many Europeans incorrectly equate the US with their country. For example, ask the average European what he thinks of full gun control, and he will tell you that it's a splendid idea. Ask the average American the same thing, and all but the biggest leftists will tell you that it would be a disaster.

That's because the Europeans think of their own crime situation, and have a hard time reconciling the fact that America's is much different. Guns are too ingrained in America's culture, and removing them from the hands of average citizens would simply leave the guns with the criminals. Most Europeans don't understand this. They believe that full gun control would simply remove all guns from American society.

I don't comment much on European political issues because I have never lived in Europe. I don't pretend to understand European life. Europeans should not pretend to understand Americans.

Really, like your swedish unsolved murder rates comments? No offense, but you tend to comment on anything and everything, and I'm sure anyone with more time than me can go through your political posts and find multiple Euro references.

First of all I'm very pro gun, but to say that ramping up gun laws would be a disaster is frankly stupid, because you're basing it on nothing but your own thoughts on the matter. How would it be a disaster? has it been attempted before, either here, or in another country that had lax gun laws and tightened them up? How do you balance this with the fact that different states have vastly different gun laws, and there is no evidence that tighter restrictions are disastrous? Massachusetts is not overrun with a problem of only criminals having guns despite really strict gun laws.

Second, how can you say Europeans don't understand the US, and then go on to say you don't claim to comment on European politics because you don't know enough about them? Wouldn't this imply that you don't know what Europeans know or don't know about the US? And how does an uninformed Euro's opinion on gun laws (or social security) differ from an uninformed US resident? I would bet that the average follower of politics in Belgium knows more about US policy than an uninformed US voter who watches 30 minutes of news before Leno.

You don't need an example of something that was tried and failed to know that a bad idea would be a disaster. There is no state in the US with full gun control (that is, prohibiting gun ownership for non-law-enforcement citizens). If such gun control existed, the guns would remain in the hands of the criminals, while the law-abiding citizens would be unarmed. This would also embolden the criminals to rob more homes and businesses, knowing that people couldn't defend themselves. That's how I know it would be a disaster. I'm using common sense.

I also never comment about European politics except to say that what works there will not necessarily work here.

My point about Europeans commenting on American politics is that they don't live here, and don't fully understand the culture and the issues this country faces. You can read about it, you can watch documentaries about it, and you can watch news about it, but you don't fully understand a culture until you have lived it.

A highly educated and informed Belgian knows far less what it's like to live in America than an ignorant, uninformed doofus American. That's because one experiences America daily, while the other does not.

When Europeans read about US crime and say, "OMG OMG why don't you have gun control?" or when they hear about the health care debate and say, "OMG OMG why doesn't the government provide health care to its citizens?", they are speaking from the position of an outsider.

It's much like childless people commenting on parenting issues. I used to think I was qualified to critique all parenting issues, and while I still stand by a lot of what I previously thought, I also discovered that I had a lot to learn from actually being there as a parent.

[Steve-O]

Really, like your swedish unsolved murder rates comments? No offense, but you tend to comment on anything and everything, and I'm sure anyone with more time than me can go through your political posts and find multiple Euro references.

First of all I'm very pro gun, but to say that ramping up gun laws would be a disaster is frankly stupid, because you're basing it on nothing but your own thoughts on the matter. How would it be a disaster? has it been attempted before, either here, or in another country that had lax gun laws and tightened them up? How do you balance this with the fact that different states have vastly different gun laws, and there is no evidence that tighter restrictions are disastrous? Massachusetts is not overrun with a problem of only criminals having guns despite really strict gun laws.

Second, how can you say Europeans don't understand the US, and then go on to say you don't claim to comment on European politics because you don't know enough about them? Wouldn't this imply that you don't know what Europeans know or don't know about the US? And how does an uninformed Euro's opinion on gun laws (or social security) differ from an uninformed US resident? I would bet that the average follower of politics in Belgium knows more about US policy than an uninformed US voter who watches 30 minutes of news before Leno.

You don't need an example of something that was tried and failed to know that a bad idea would be a disaster. There is no state in the US with full gun control (that is, prohibiting gun ownership for non-law-enforcement citizens). If such gun control existed, the guns would remain in the hands of the criminals, while the law-abiding citizens would be unarmed. This would also embolden the criminals to rob more homes and businesses, knowing that people couldn't defend themselves. That's how I know it would be a disaster. I'm using common sense.

I also never comment about European politics except to say that what works there will not necessarily work here.

My point about Europeans commenting on American politics is that they don't live here, and don't fully understand the culture and the issues this country faces. You can read about it, you can watch documentaries about it, and you can watch news about it, but you don't fully understand a culture until you have lived it.

A highly educated and informed Belgian knows far less what it's like to live in America than an ignorant, uninformed doofus American. That's because one experiences America daily, while the other does not.

When Europeans read about US crime and say, "OMG OMG why don't you have gun control?" or when they hear about the health care debate and say, "OMG OMG why doesn't the government provide health care to its citizens?", they are speaking from the position of an outsider.

It's much like childless people commenting on parenting issues. I used to think I was qualified to critique all parenting issues, and while I still stand by a lot of what I previously thought, I also discovered that I had a lot to learn from actually being there as a parent.

#1 -- very few European countries have full gun control (the only one I can think of is Northern Ireland). What the Euros are speaking of is restrictions not prohibition. I lived in Germany and saw guns for sale in stores, you just need a shit ton of paperwork to get one. I've also seen the German system up close and personal, and while I think it's far too socialistic there were plenty of things that worked very well (Much like the Mormon Church's tithing policy, Germans pay a flat 10% for Health care with most employers paying 1/2).

#2 -- if Health Care is so bad explain Massachusetts? Oh wait you can't, you don't live here so you are an outsider! Ask China what he thinks of it, ask me and my family what it means to be able to get Health Care without paying $1,200/month because I'm self-employed. Funny how Romney and Ryan praised medicare, and talked about preserving it, considering it's the most socialistic program we have.

#3 -- Next time you're in a cardroom ask 50 random people how much more a person making $300k would pay if a tax increase on incomes above $250k went from 35% to 39%. Guarantee a SCARY percentage will say 4% of $300k. Ask them to explain three principles of Democrats and Republicans? ask them who their Senators are? Aske them who their state rep is? Ask them who the Secretary of State is? It's fucking scary that people that know close to zero about politics are deciding elections.

You have little understanding of how ignorant the average American is on politics.