Mitt Romney believes that his best line of attack is making the claim that he has not spent a moment as a D.C. politician while his two main opponents, Newt ...
No two ways about it, Rick Santorum had a good night. Not only did he sweep Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri but he also got off the best line of the ...
Few would argue the fact that Citizens United has been a major player in the Republican primary...and many if not most would concede that none of it has been healthy ...
As if you needed another reason to not vote Romney.
Celebrity business magnate Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney for president Thursday, telling reporters he will not mount an independent campaign if ...
In a perfect world, the Republican contest to find a nominee to face Barack Obama would go on forever...or at least until August. You cannot attach a number to the ...
I suspect there are a ton of conservatives secretly agreeing with Begala and while it's too early in the game for Dems to get cocky, it's difficult to not smile ...
Quotes don't get much better than this one by Bob Dole.
"Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?" asked a perplexed Gingrich, to whom Dole bluntly ...
After the beating Gingrich took last night, it's hard to imagine under what scenario he can make a comeback. Florida is going to Romney and for Gingrich to regain the ...
There's a lot out there on the President's SOTU, so I'll keep my thoughts short and sweet.
The speech did what it had to do which was target liberals and independents ...
The highlights from last night's debate.
- Newt Gingrich can't wait to become president so he can revisit the early 60s and overthrow Castro in Cuba. War, baby, war.
- Santorum, who ...
It appears that the South Carolina verdict is forcing Romney to start taking Gingrich seriously.
“We’re not choosing a talk show host, we’re choosing a leader,” Romney said, saying that their ...
Mike Huckabee offers advice to Mitt Romney concerning his unreleased tax returns.
Let him [Romney] make this challenge: "I'll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts and ...
Via Political Humor...
"Mitt Romney is coming under fire because even though he is a multimillionaire, he only paid 15 percent in taxes. That's not a tax, that's barely a tip." ...
Good line.
My guess is that after Romney fails to beat Obama in the general, Huntsman will be back in 2016. The most electable guy in the field and he could ...
I found this pretty funny...and accurate. It comes from a reader over at Balloon Juice.
So, let’s review. The contenders for the GOP nomination are
A vulture capitalist who believes that any ...
Lively little debate going on at one of last week's posts with Libertarianism put under the microscope.
ocLiberal:
I know I am in sketchy territory here, (start the indignant shouting now) but ...
In the contest to determine the winner of the Far-Right Politics gold medal, rack up a few more points for Newt Gingrich.
“I think an intelligent conservative wants the right federal ...
Via Political Humor...
"Congratulations to Mitt Romney. He won the New Hampshire primary last night. See, this is proof that even the multimillionaire son of a multimillionaire can beat the odds ...
Story 1:
North Korea punishing those who 'didn't display enough sadness over Kim Jong Il's death'
North Korean authorities are reportedly punishing citizens who did not display enough sadness over the death ...
I’ve been getting mail, tweets and comments on the Ann Coulter Google ad appearing on my site. Google’s software has control of those ads, so it’s out of my hands. I wonder if it might have to do with an April post I did on the vixen…
.
.
___
To receive email notifications of new posts from MarioPiperniDotCom, click on Subscribe.
I just think it’s funny that the ad says “Ann Coulter Free” on a liberal blog site. Cracks me up.
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would think the person in charge of placing the Google ads is a conservative Ann Coulter fan and thinks that since everyone likes something free he can lure liberals to click on the ad, read her column where her words play some reverse jedi mind trick on the reader and we become a follower.
@Janine, that’s it, my son has been taken over by the Jedi Master.
And Hank, I listen to Ann, Michelle, and O’Reilly (Limbaugh on an empty stomach). But not too long as I get dry mouth from my jaw dropping to the floor in amazement of the convoluted logic. My bro is a conservative and I can’t argue with him if I don’t know what he is hearing
I think the ads are generated automatically. So, if Ann Coulter is mentioned in a post,in some way, the ad is placed. Also, if the ad is clicked, as some of us may have done yesterday,when it was first mentioned here, the ad is placed again. Just a guess here.
@Janine, free could mean she doesn’t charge for services rendered, if you catch my drift. We already know she is a media _ _ _ _ _.
I actually listen to Ann, on occasion, how can I diss her if I haven’t tuned in. I’ve also occasionally watch Bill, Fox News, (their morning program is quite entertaining), and I watch Beck sometimes. But with Beck I end up laughing so hard I can’t hear him.
I even listen to Rush on rare occasions. Okay sometimes my ears bleed, not sure what that’s about…
@Maxene Google ads are generate automatically… mmmmmm, I’m sticking with my conspiracy theory. Not that I’m a conspiracy theorist.. and I catch your drift.
Ok, now this is interesting to me. How can all of you (Hank, Dahl and Janine) listen to Rush and Beck, hear the same exact words, but come to different conclusions about what was said? If I hear them, I hear something all together different. Is it the baseline of knowledge that each of us filter the information through?
@Tommy, I have thought about that often when my brother and I get into it.
We can see the same video and “Translate” it into our own preconception. Usually Labor and Business but neither of us are totally Left or Right winged – depends on the issue and then we can totally agree (which startles both of us at times)
Tommy, I just re-read Limbaugh’s CPAC speech and had forgotten how long it was. I apologize, perhaps the wiser choice would have been to pick something shorter. There’s a lot to debate in this speech but I will attempt to keep it to some gut reaction highlights with some observations:
I do agree with some of Limbaugh’s umbrella statements, for example:
“When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. Liberty, Freedom. And the pursuit of happiness.”
and he wants ‘everyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed’
He makes all inclusive statement like above, then qualifies them and proceeds to fracture that which he has just held out as all inclusive.
He qualifies the statement that he wants everyone to succeed by saying he wants President Obama to fail, that he wants any organization, person, or element of an overarching Big Government to fail which means that he doesn’t believe that anyone who is in that category should succeed. The people that may be in these categories believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but they shouldn’t be allowed to succeed by Limbaugh’s standards. In my opinion, this is disingenuous and an example of the disingenuousness I most often find in Limbaugh’s statements.
He says that conservative beliefs are not the result of a deranged psychology they are beliefs at ‘our core’ ‘our beliefs are our hearts’. What he is saying here is that anyone who doesn’t beleive the conservative way is psychologically deranged. What he discounts is that a liberal, an independant, a green party person, a libertian also have core beliefs and those beliefs are their heart and they are not psycholigically deranged people. In fact, his statements mirror the statements made in this blog by commenters of conservative ideology who say that if ‘they don’t agree with the liberal perspective in this blog we think they are crazy’ It is interesting that both sides say the same thing about the other ideology when they are in disagreement.
He says President Obama portrays America as a soup kitchen and the President wants to destroy America, ruin the lifestyles of Americans. My opinion is that President Obama wants the exact opposite.
Limbaugh says that we have transferred something like 10 trillion, maybe close to 11 trillion, from producers and earners to nonproducers and nonearners since 1965, the war on poverty has been the longest war and why are people poor? because their lives have been destroyed by the never ending government hay that’s designed to help them. What he fails to mention is that (prior to President Obama) of the 8 presidents during this time period from 1965 through GWB 5 were Republican. He wants America to return to the way it was when he was growing up. Limbaugh is 58, 9 years older than myself, we are in the same generation. This is the America we grew up in. The American that from 1965 through GWB 5 out of 8 presidents were republican.
He blames the economic crises on Clinton and I understand that’s a popular viewpoint but Bush’s Administration took us a long way down the economic crises road, so while it could be argued to have begun at Clinton’s door Bush did nothing to stop it and continued merrily down that road, relaxing regs, putting us into two wars which costs were kept off book so the people wouldn’t see the budgetary ramifications.
Limbaugh keeps saying conservatives are compassionate people, but compassionate people do not wish failure on some and success on others.
Limbaugh thinks capitalism is under attack because dems want regulations. I disagree, there needs to be some regulations in place if only to prevent this last economic downturn and if only to prevent companies from spewing toxic waste into ground water thus giving entire towns cancer and causing people’s lives to be cut criminally short. Some regulations are needed and have indeed been put in place to prevent chemical companies from allowing their workers to handle dangerous chemicals with ungloved hands, with unmasked faces, thus cutting their lives criminally short. These type of regulations may deter Limbaugh’s idea of capitalism, but are they not for the greater good?
Limbaugh goes on to discuss liberals and conservatives and why bipartisanship cannot work because as he status ‘there is no compromise between good and evil.’ I do not believe any one is suggesting either party leave their principles at the door, just come to the table, leave your ideological blanket at home, take off your sunglasses and have a chat.
He accuses President Obama of wanting to redefine the Constitution. Here is an ideological example of stating something that just isn’t true. Conservatives may believe that is what President Obama wants to do, but that is just not an accurate assessment.
Well, Tommy, there’s still more speech to cover but above are the highlights.
Wow, long is right. I heard about it, but I’ve never read it or heard it. He rambles a lot. It reminds me of an L. Ron Hubbard lecture. Both of them were “preaching to the choir”, so they didn’t have to make a lot of detailed points. They weren’t trying to convince anyone of anything. Everyone in the audience already agreed with Limbaugh’s message. This was a “pep rally”, and he was firing up the team and fans.
The same happens when Obama speaks to a group of his supporters.
If Limbaugh were speaking to a hostile group, I’m sure we would have heard a different speech from him. It would have been more educational, laying more groundwork to the premises presented.
With that in mind, I agree with him on many of the major points, but disagree on where he lays the blame.
1) America is a great country.
2) American is made up of individuals, and only individuals, have made this a great country.
3) Group mentality is a danger to individual freedom.
4) The Constitution and Bill of Rights were designed by our founders to protect the rights of individuals (not groups).
5) Defining a problem (poverty) and then throwing money at it, is a way to garner a locked in group of voters. It makes the politicians willing to spend the money popular and the ones voting against it unpopular, regardless of whether it was working or not.
6) What I heard him say about people succeeding, is that he wants every individual to succeed (financially). Even though he didn’t say that specifically, both the crowd and I got it. I don’t want everyone to succeed either. Bank robbers, fish poachers, and politicians who want to homogenize our individual potential to succeed, are on my short list of people I want to see fail. He, and the audience, view Obama’s policies as incrementally leading to that homogenization, to their desired equality of outcomes. Without an individual’s potential for greater than average success as an incentive, our country will fail.
Now where I disagree is that he doesn’t say that 5 out of the last 8 presidents were republicans (like you said), and the problems continued.
He didn’t talk about all the times that republicans have used the same trick mentioned in point 5) to get votes from their constituents.
He didn’t say that both parties are to blame for the financial mess that we’re in. He tends to portray republicans as superior to democrats, when in fact they’re both at fault for what’s wrong in this country. The both suck equally.
He didn’t say that attempting to instill moral compasses on people is the same as trying to force a sense of compassion on people. Both lead to a restriction of personal freedoms.
I could go on, but it’s late, and this isn’t a book.
Enclosed please find $3.00 for the purchase of one Ann Coulter clock and mail to:
OMG if that was real I would get one and send to my son who actually likes Ann Coulter (I know, I raised him up better) Great Picture :->
I just think it’s funny that the ad says “Ann Coulter Free” on a liberal blog site. Cracks me up.
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would think the person in charge of placing the Google ads is a conservative Ann Coulter fan and thinks that since everyone likes something free he can lure liberals to click on the ad, read her column where her words play some reverse jedi mind trick on the reader and we become a follower.
But, I’m not a conspiracy theorist…..
Janine…maybe he’s just operating under the mistaken impression that Liberals actually are interested in hearing an opposing viewpoint? ;-)
@Janine, that’s it, my son has been taken over by the Jedi Master.
And Hank, I listen to Ann, Michelle, and O’Reilly (Limbaugh on an empty stomach). But not too long as I get dry mouth from my jaw dropping to the floor in amazement of the convoluted logic. My bro is a conservative and I can’t argue with him if I don’t know what he is hearing
I think the ads are generated automatically. So, if Ann Coulter is mentioned in a post,in some way, the ad is placed. Also, if the ad is clicked, as some of us may have done yesterday,when it was first mentioned here, the ad is placed again. Just a guess here.
@Janine, free could mean she doesn’t charge for services rendered, if you catch my drift. We already know she is a media _ _ _ _ _.
@Hank, funny funny
I actually listen to Ann, on occasion, how can I diss her if I haven’t tuned in. I’ve also occasionally watch Bill, Fox News, (their morning program is quite entertaining), and I watch Beck sometimes. But with Beck I end up laughing so hard I can’t hear him.
I even listen to Rush on rare occasions. Okay sometimes my ears bleed, not sure what that’s about…
@Maxene Google ads are generate automatically… mmmmmm, I’m sticking with my conspiracy theory. Not that I’m a conspiracy theorist.. and I catch your drift.
Ok, now this is interesting to me. How can all of you (Hank, Dahl and Janine) listen to Rush and Beck, hear the same exact words, but come to different conclusions about what was said? If I hear them, I hear something all together different. Is it the baseline of knowledge that each of us filter the information through?
Any thoughts?
@Tommy Pane
Me thinks our minds are wired different. But let us experiment
Read Limbaugh’s CPAC speech
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/01/transcript-rush-limbaughs-address-cpac/
Then we can exchange our impressions of same
@Tommy, I have thought about that often when my brother and I get into it.
We can see the same video and “Translate” it into our own preconception. Usually Labor and Business but neither of us are totally Left or Right winged – depends on the issue and then we can totally agree (which startles both of us at times)
Good idea. I’ll read it tonight and post my impressions.
@Tommy Pane,
I’ll do the same. It’ll be interesting!
@Tommy Pane
Tommy, I just re-read Limbaugh’s CPAC speech and had forgotten how long it was. I apologize, perhaps the wiser choice would have been to pick something shorter. There’s a lot to debate in this speech but I will attempt to keep it to some gut reaction highlights with some observations:
I do agree with some of Limbaugh’s umbrella statements, for example:
“When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. Liberty, Freedom. And the pursuit of happiness.”
and he wants ‘everyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed’
He makes all inclusive statement like above, then qualifies them and proceeds to fracture that which he has just held out as all inclusive.
He qualifies the statement that he wants everyone to succeed by saying he wants President Obama to fail, that he wants any organization, person, or element of an overarching Big Government to fail which means that he doesn’t believe that anyone who is in that category should succeed. The people that may be in these categories believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but they shouldn’t be allowed to succeed by Limbaugh’s standards. In my opinion, this is disingenuous and an example of the disingenuousness I most often find in Limbaugh’s statements.
He says that conservative beliefs are not the result of a deranged psychology they are beliefs at ‘our core’ ‘our beliefs are our hearts’. What he is saying here is that anyone who doesn’t beleive the conservative way is psychologically deranged. What he discounts is that a liberal, an independant, a green party person, a libertian also have core beliefs and those beliefs are their heart and they are not psycholigically deranged people. In fact, his statements mirror the statements made in this blog by commenters of conservative ideology who say that if ‘they don’t agree with the liberal perspective in this blog we think they are crazy’ It is interesting that both sides say the same thing about the other ideology when they are in disagreement.
He says President Obama portrays America as a soup kitchen and the President wants to destroy America, ruin the lifestyles of Americans. My opinion is that President Obama wants the exact opposite.
Limbaugh says that we have transferred something like 10 trillion, maybe close to 11 trillion, from producers and earners to nonproducers and nonearners since 1965, the war on poverty has been the longest war and why are people poor? because their lives have been destroyed by the never ending government hay that’s designed to help them. What he fails to mention is that (prior to President Obama) of the 8 presidents during this time period from 1965 through GWB 5 were Republican. He wants America to return to the way it was when he was growing up. Limbaugh is 58, 9 years older than myself, we are in the same generation. This is the America we grew up in. The American that from 1965 through GWB 5 out of 8 presidents were republican.
He blames the economic crises on Clinton and I understand that’s a popular viewpoint but Bush’s Administration took us a long way down the economic crises road, so while it could be argued to have begun at Clinton’s door Bush did nothing to stop it and continued merrily down that road, relaxing regs, putting us into two wars which costs were kept off book so the people wouldn’t see the budgetary ramifications.
Limbaugh keeps saying conservatives are compassionate people, but compassionate people do not wish failure on some and success on others.
Limbaugh thinks capitalism is under attack because dems want regulations. I disagree, there needs to be some regulations in place if only to prevent this last economic downturn and if only to prevent companies from spewing toxic waste into ground water thus giving entire towns cancer and causing people’s lives to be cut criminally short. Some regulations are needed and have indeed been put in place to prevent chemical companies from allowing their workers to handle dangerous chemicals with ungloved hands, with unmasked faces, thus cutting their lives criminally short. These type of regulations may deter Limbaugh’s idea of capitalism, but are they not for the greater good?
Limbaugh goes on to discuss liberals and conservatives and why bipartisanship cannot work because as he status ‘there is no compromise between good and evil.’ I do not believe any one is suggesting either party leave their principles at the door, just come to the table, leave your ideological blanket at home, take off your sunglasses and have a chat.
He accuses President Obama of wanting to redefine the Constitution. Here is an ideological example of stating something that just isn’t true. Conservatives may believe that is what President Obama wants to do, but that is just not an accurate assessment.
Well, Tommy, there’s still more speech to cover but above are the highlights.
@janine
Wow, long is right. I heard about it, but I’ve never read it or heard it. He rambles a lot. It reminds me of an L. Ron Hubbard lecture. Both of them were “preaching to the choir”, so they didn’t have to make a lot of detailed points. They weren’t trying to convince anyone of anything. Everyone in the audience already agreed with Limbaugh’s message. This was a “pep rally”, and he was firing up the team and fans.
The same happens when Obama speaks to a group of his supporters.
If Limbaugh were speaking to a hostile group, I’m sure we would have heard a different speech from him. It would have been more educational, laying more groundwork to the premises presented.
With that in mind, I agree with him on many of the major points, but disagree on where he lays the blame.
1) America is a great country.
2) American is made up of individuals, and only individuals, have made this a great country.
3) Group mentality is a danger to individual freedom.
4) The Constitution and Bill of Rights were designed by our founders to protect the rights of individuals (not groups).
5) Defining a problem (poverty) and then throwing money at it, is a way to garner a locked in group of voters. It makes the politicians willing to spend the money popular and the ones voting against it unpopular, regardless of whether it was working or not.
6) What I heard him say about people succeeding, is that he wants every individual to succeed (financially). Even though he didn’t say that specifically, both the crowd and I got it. I don’t want everyone to succeed either. Bank robbers, fish poachers, and politicians who want to homogenize our individual potential to succeed, are on my short list of people I want to see fail. He, and the audience, view Obama’s policies as incrementally leading to that homogenization, to their desired equality of outcomes. Without an individual’s potential for greater than average success as an incentive, our country will fail.
Now where I disagree is that he doesn’t say that 5 out of the last 8 presidents were republicans (like you said), and the problems continued.
He didn’t talk about all the times that republicans have used the same trick mentioned in point 5) to get votes from their constituents.
He didn’t say that both parties are to blame for the financial mess that we’re in. He tends to portray republicans as superior to democrats, when in fact they’re both at fault for what’s wrong in this country. The both suck equally.
He didn’t say that attempting to instill moral compasses on people is the same as trying to force a sense of compassion on people. Both lead to a restriction of personal freedoms.
I could go on, but it’s late, and this isn’t a book.