StripersOnline › SurfTalk › Community Forums › Political Graffiti › Why Rush survives on Fox
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Rush survives on Fox

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
They're a lie machine.

Republicans constant barrage of lies we've heard, claiming that President Obama is somehow anti-energy while trying to make hay of the recent rise in gas prices. He's been anything but, not that facts matter much to the GOP who are desperate to find anything to make a campaign issue out of.

As Karoli already noted, the yappers over at Fox can barely contain their glee over rising gas prices and that clip with Hannity and Rove isn't the least or the worst of it by far.

The issue of gas prices and whether there is political advantage to be plunged from them has gotten Republicans very excited in recent day. "The New York Times" reporting last week for instance that House Speaker John Boehner has been using the potential rise in gas prices as a way to essentially buck up the spirits of House Republicans. Quote, "Speaker Boehner instructed fellow Republicans to embrace the gas pump anger they find among their constituents."

Republicans are psyched! Republicans see political hay that could potentially get made here. And when Republicans get psyched, when they think there is political hay to be made, they go on TV and they say stuff like this.

KARL ROVE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Look, President Obama has been anti-energy from the beginning. The president even gave a loan to Brazil - - Brazil which is eating our lunch economically, internationally. Why do they need our money? They got plenty of their own. He gave them a loan and told them, as you just alluded to, went down there and said, we want to be your best customer.

That was Karl Rove on the FOX News Channel this week saying that President Obama is so anti-American energy, that he gave a loan to Brazil, so Brazil can drill for oil and we can then buy that oil from them.

If you travel around conservative media circles, this has been taken as gospel for the last few years. President Obama loaned Brazil $2 billion so they can drill for oil, while he`s all but stopped oil production here at home.

Now, while that might make for an awesome conservative talking point, it also happens to be 100 percent total unadulterated bullpuckey.

ROVE: Look, President Obama has been anti-energy from the beginning.

In fact-based world, here`s what`s actually happening to the American oil industry during the Obama administration. Quote, "The number of oil rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quadrupled in the past three years. The United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world."

But just because we have more oil rigs now, that doesn`t mean we`re actually producing more oil. Yes, yes, it does, actually.

Under President Obama. Yes, oh, hey, look, oil production is up. We are producing more oil right now than we did at any point during George W. Bush`s second term.

ROVE: The president even gave a loan to Brazil -- Brazil which is eating our lunch economically internationally.

Actually, no.

But the president did not give a loan to April. A loan was made to the Brazilian oil company by something called the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Not by the president, but by the Export-Import Bank. The remit of the Export-Import Bank is to export more American goods around the world, and the way they do that is they make loans to foreign governments and foreign companies who commit to buying American products. When foreigners buy American stuff, that`s an export.

Now, you may like that kind of arrangement, or you may hate it, but it is not the president who made this deal. And as long as you care, this actual decision to extend this actual loan to Brazil, this was a decision made by Export-Import Bank board members who were all appointed by George W. Bush.

Somebody, alert Karl Rove!

When gas prices go up, as they are going up right now, it is essentially a certainty that some politician somewhere is going to try to make political hay out of it. Those politicians, those political commentators, they deserve to be fact checked when they say stuff like that. And when they are wrong, when they are lying through their teeth, it deserves to be called bullpuckey.
post #2 of 55
when is Rush on fox?
post #3 of 55
Thread Starter 
Look on the Fox website and see how many videos they have of him. That's when.
post #4 of 55
How do libs even look themselves in the mirror
post #5 of 55
but hes not employed by fox...........so if fox had alot more videos of obama on the site would that be better?? I mean obama doesent work for fox either
post #6 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
How do libs even look themselves in the mirror

I would bet the same way conservatives do. Here's how. Get up, walk to a mirror, stand in front, look into it.

Look, it's well known I despise every politician in Washington from the Prez down. I just like to see who defends them.

Since 1972 what's gotten better in this country ? Who's caused it ? That's why I don't like a one of them.

I just don't condone lying people like Rove or his ilk. That's all my beef is about.

I post favorably for both sides when they do right. The threads are there to search for proof.

They play games with our lives, so I play with theirs in my way. Fair is fair.
post #7 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by TatonkaJames View Post

Quote:
How do libs even look themselves in the mirror
I would bet the same way conservatives do. Here's how. Get up, walk to a mirror, stand in front, look into it.
Look, it's well known I despise every politician in Washington from the Prez down. I just like to see who defends them.
Since 1972 what's gotten better in this country ? Who's caused it ? That's why I don't like a one of them.
I just don't condone lying people like Rove or his ilk. That's all my beef is about.
I post favorably for both sides when they do right. The threads are there to search for proof.
They play games with our lives, so I play with theirs in my way. Fair is fair.
He produces his own show and sells it to Clear Channel
Fox? Really?
post #8 of 55
Thread Starter 
Either way, he's bad mouthing someone he doesn't know anything about to make money. He's not a man, he's not an entertainer, he's willing to say
anything for a buck. That is not an honorable person at all. And for Fox to pay him, that says it all for them too.

When they don't correct their mistakes in order to purposely mislead, they have zero credibility. Well, so do all the other media news. It's like watching
game shows these days.

Except the best source is to watch them spout their lies on CSPAN live, then they can't be taken out of context.
post #9 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by TatonkaJames View Post

Either way, he's bad mouthing someone he doesn't know anything about to make money. He's not a man, he's not an entertainer, he's willing to say
anything for a buck. That is not an honorable person at all. And for Fox to pay him, that says it all for them too.
When they don't correct their mistakes in order to purposely mislead, they have zero credibility. Well, so do all the other media news. It's like watching
game shows these days.
Except the best source is to watch them spout their lies on CSPAN live, then they can't be taken out of context.


Actually, Rush Limbaugh is more or less a competitor of Fox News.  Fox does have a series of radio shows that they sell, I don't know if or where they bump heads, but they certainly can.

As far as purposely misleading, please.  I am going to go get my other post and put it here (hold music):

 

 

Lets concentrate on the testimony.  All her anecdotes were "I have a friend".  She apparently has no personal knowledge of the issue.  Virgin?  Homosexual?  Or distancing herself from lies?

She cited a poll taken at Georgetown about how much of a burden it would be for a woman to buy birth control.The answer was 40 percent?  You believe that?

She noted that another "friend" takes birth control pills to stop cramps.  That is not birth control, that is cramp control.

 

Now here are the real kickers.  Three thousand dollars.  A thousand a year for three years..  Guess what?  Its a bald faced lie. 

Sandra Fluke, labeled as a "reproductive rights activist" (whatever the hell that is) said in Congress:

 

Quote:
“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”

(I love how she adds in that "as you know".  Translation-"you idiot")

 

 

 

John McCormick of Weekly Standard went right down to the far end of the Georgetown Campus to the Target.

Birth Control Pills at that Target, with NO insurance-straight cash-NINE Dollars for a month supply.  Nine dollars

 

Quote:
 "That's the price without insurance," the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

Now lets do that math, we gotta get to 3 grand.  Three years X 12 months per year=36 months.

9 dollars per month X 36 months= Three Hundred Twenty Four dollars

She was wrong by a factor of ten.

 

Tatonka, why WHY would she lie like that?  Why?  ORR, is she Stupid?

 

 

 

 

WHY do you have to LIE about this issue?  WHY????

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dc-target-sells-birth-control-9-month-georgetown-student-tells-congress-friends-are-going-broke-pay-pills_632955.html

 

 

OK so lets go one more step.  Lets say three hundred is too much money for a struggling Georgetown Law Student that just CAN"T stop *******.

Charlie Cook at National Review wanted to see how expensive birth control was in his neighborhood in Chelsea (not DC, but play along).  He stopped counting when he got to around three hundred free New York City rubbers and he did it in one single afternoon just a couple blocks from his house.  Lets do that math.  300 X0 = ZERO.

So birth control can cost a Georgetown law student nothing.  ZIP

(They are so easy to get that Cook found a bowl of free NYC rubbers in a shoe store.  A damned shoe store)

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292202/my-contraceptive-haul-charles-c-w-cooke

 

 

WHY all the LIES Tatonka James?  Why all the lies?

 

 

See i know why.  Let me ask you-why didn't you mention that Rush Limbaugh took back what he said during the monologue?  Did you listen to it?  Did you read it?  You didn;t did you?

 

 

 

This entire issue is a fraud.  Based on a fraud (Obamacare), by fraudulent people.

 

post #10 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by TatonkaJames View Post


Look, it's well known I despise every politician in Washington from the Prez down.. Who's caused it ? That's why I don't like a one of them.


Charlie Reese knows who caused it.





Charlie Reese's attention-grabbing commentary:

Commentary by Charlie Reese

545 People

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of 300+ million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.

In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.

They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.

I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.

No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget.

He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.


Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300+ million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible.

They and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.






About Charlie Reese:

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years, reporting on everything from sports to politics. From 1969-71, he worked as a campaign staffer for gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional races in several states. He was an editor, assistant to the publisher, and columnist for the Orlando Sentinel from 1971 to 2001. He now writes a syndicated column three times a week for King Features. Reese served two years active duty in the U.S. Army as a tank gunner.
post #11 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little View Post

He produces his own show and sells it to Clear Channel
Fox? Really?

exactly.....anotyher confused lefty thinking rush is part of fox.......kinda funny to be calling someone a liar while you yourself lie about the personi n question......priceless.
post #12 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Lets concentrate on the testimony. All her anecdotes were "I have a friend". She apparently has no personal knowledge of the issue.

Yep, men are right again, they know female stuff better than women themselves.

Issa wanted all men to decide what a woman's rights are. This is a man's world all-right.
Quote:
Let me ask you-why didn't you mention that Rush Limbaugh took back what he said during the monologue?

No article I saw said he took it back. And I'm not lying. If there's one, show me.

Here's her complete testimony.

Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.
Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.
When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any
longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?
These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the
removal of her ovary.
She’s 32 years old. As she put it: “If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.” Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age-- increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.
Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.
This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, “this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.” These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.
In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we
resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.
Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf

Don't presume to know what I did or didn't do. I've been here since 2001 and know the game both sides play and I am not part of either side. So, no need to lie or distort. Children lie, men state facts. (Unless they are politicians.) :)
post #13 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
exactly.....anotyher confused lefty thinking rush is part of fox.......kinda funny to be calling someone a liar while you yourself lie about the personi n question......priceless.

Oh my, I misstated one little thing, his fat arse face is all over Fox News all the time, my bad. Confused is what the lies coming out of Fox does to right wing voters.

KARL ROVE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Look, President Obama has been anti-energy from the beginning. The president even gave a loan to Brazil - - Brazil which is eating our lunch economically, internationally. Why do they need our money? They got plenty of their own. He gave them a loan and told them, as you just alluded to, went down there and said, we want to be your best customer.

That was Karl Rove on the FOX News Channel this week saying that President Obama is so anti-American energy, that he gave a loan to Brazil, so Brazil can drill for oil and we can then buy that oil from them.

If you travel around conservative media circles, this has been taken as gospel for the last few years. President Obama loaned Brazil $2 billion so they can drill for oil, while he`s all but stopped oil production here at home.

Now, while that might make for an awesome conservative talking point, it also happens to be 100 percent total unadulterated bullpuckey.

ROVE: Look, President Obama has been anti-energy from the beginning.

In fact-based world, here`s what`s actually happening to the American oil industry during the Obama administration. Quote, "The number of oil rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quadrupled in the past three years. The United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world."

But just because we have more oil rigs now, that doesn`t mean we`re actually producing more oil. Yes, yes, it does, actually.

Under President Obama. Yes, oh, hey, look, oil production is up. We are producing more oil right now than we did at any point during George W. Bush`s second term.

ROVE: The president even gave a loan to Brazil -- Brazil which is eating our lunch economically internationally.

Actually, no.

But the president did not give a loan to April. A loan was made to the Brazilian oil company by something called the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Not by the president, but by the Export-Import Bank. The remit of the Export-Import Bank is to export more American goods around the world, and the way they do that is they make loans to foreign governments and foreign companies who commit to buying American products. When foreigners buy American stuff, that`s an export.

Now, you may like that kind of arrangement, or you may hate it, but it is not the president who made this deal. And as long as you care, this actual decision to extend this actual loan to Brazil, this was a decision made by Export-Import Bank board members who were all appointed by George W. Bush.

Somebody, alert Karl Rove!
post #14 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by TatonkaJames View Post

Yep, men are right again, they know female stuff better than women themselves.
ok then.
we've had only male presidents.

we should eliminate laws dealing with birth control since men know nothing about women's issues.
post #15 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
ok then.
we've had only male presidents.

we should eliminate laws dealing with birth control since men know nothing about women's issues.

Well, that would just prove republicans hate women. We see how public officials like Newt treat them, wonder how
I see it goes beyond just politicians in belief.
The intelligent thing to do is have women and men discuss it, unlike Issa who wants to be the Ovarian Hitler.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Graffiti
StripersOnline › SurfTalk › Community Forums › Political Graffiti › Why Rush survives on Fox