What right-wing CIC did these things?? Reagan?? Bush?? Nixon?? Dubya?? All I know of is Gov Sanford. But I WILL say this, as in the case of Clinton, if they're gonna lie to their wives, I don't want them having a hand in running my country. What else will they lie about? Right OR left...

I'm talking about McCain when he ran for President.

Should post Victorian era biology and social science be taught to school kids?

He's a moderate so it doesn't matter.

He was running to be a Republican President. He touted family values with the history of having a gf while he was married and married the gf. That did not go over well with me.

Just curious. Why does Senor Oxycontin never have guests on his show? And why does he never appear on any other show? Could he be fearing an opposing point of view? One that might challenge his many lies?

"Get out the way Old Dan Tucker.
You're too late to get your supper"

Sorry, was just listening to some Bruce on youtube. Sessions band . Great stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-GHbDFrwlU

he never touted Family Values...the last Republican to do that was Bush Sr. in 88...

can you refute what the man says ?...I doubt it !!...Jethro...the Gent...

But Blago, Spitzer, Clinton and JFK DID sit well with you? And they did MUCH more than cheat on their wives. That's the lib hypocritical thinking there. Nothing personal, but liberals are liberals when it's convenient more than anything. It's almost like a crutch.

[

he never touted Family Values...the last Republican to do that was Bush Sr. in 88...


???????????????????????????

My Dom awaits. Have a good night people.

Bush Jr.

McCain didnt do it that much, and seemed adverse to it, but Palin certainly did.

Goodnight GG2

here Jim...read some of his transcripts from todays show...




Obama's Economic Plan is Working
July 2, 2009

Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer

Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: Unemployment is now at 9.5%; 467,000 jobs were cut in June. This is "far more than what was expected." Since President Obama took office, over two million jobs in less than six months, or close to six months, have been lost -- and it is astounding, it is hilarious to read State-Run Media today try to go through the contortions of making this sound not as bad as it is. Here is... Let's see. This is Reuters. "The June job losses were more than 100,000 greater than the 363,000 consensus of Wall Street economists polled by Reuters and that broke a four month trend..." We've got more... Unemployment's, what, more people out of work than since 1994! It's incredible here. Why is it so hard just to report it's worse than anybody predicted? What is so hard about reporting how bad this is? Well, because it doesn't fit the template.

You see by now everybody was supposed to be happy and we were supposed to be digging ditches and building roads and bridges and new schools -- and everybody was supposed to be wearing their Obama caps and uniforms and going, "Ooh, aren't we lucky! Aren't we cool," and it isn't happening. Like I saw on TV this morning, this dunce reporter: "Is it time for a second stimulus?" And the Obamaite actually goofed up and said, "I'm still trying to get my hands on the first stimulus." (laughing) Most of it hasn't been spent, ladies and gentlemen. "Manhattan apartment sales plunged more than 50%. The average price dropped 21.4% to 24% from a year ago, down almost 25%," and they had computer problems at the New York Stock Exchange. Before that they announced the worst pre-Fourth of July trading day in history.

And our good buddies over at the Associated Press try to say in their report that the recession began in December of 2007 and that we've lost a total of six and a half million jobs since then. But that's not when the recession began. The recession began in 2008. They say 2007, so they can blame all this on Bush -- and even the Obamaite Lisa Jackson who was on TV this morning, kept talking about, "Well, it's what we inherited. We inherited... We inherited..." So they're doing everything they can to blame this on Bush, to come out and say, "You know, it's worse than we thought it was," which, by the way, I predicted they would say. "It's worse than we thought it was," and so now Obama is going to head out there and he's going to do a speech.

He's going to talk about the unemployment numbers at two o'clock this afternoon. What do you think he's going to say? He's going to say, "It's bad. But I want it to be bad. I didn't know how bad because we didn't know. We didn't get the truth about how bad it was from what we inherited. But just think of how bad it would be if we hadn't acted." That's what he'll say. You want to take any bets on this? "It could be worse, folks. If we hadn't acted I shudder to think what our jobs situation would be in this country." It's precisely the wrong kind of government intervention that has caused this and prolonged it, and he owns it, whether he wants to or not. The market was down, at one point today, 150 points on the news, on the unemployment news. I still maintain -- and as you know, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not pulling any punches here.


I maintain that Obama's stimulus bill is working exactly as intended: rising unemployment, crisis. This is what they want. Now, if it starts affecting poll numbers, which it has, you're just going to see him out there trying to work his magic with his dulcet tones. Like at two o'clock this afternoon, he's going to be out there trying to make it all seem okay and how bad it would have been if he hadn't been elected, if he hadn't done the stimulus. What we have today is just another day of evidence of the president's successful assault on prosperity. Obama is winning, folks. If things get bad enough, everyone will have to look at the government for everything, including health care. Obama is remaking America just as he promised.

Let me ask you a quick question to illustrate my point here. If you wanted more people to demand free health care, if you wanted more people to demand a government health care program, wouldn't you want to drive their bills through the roof? Wouldn't you want to make 'em more and more unemployed because we don't have "portability" of health insurance. So the worse you can create economic circumstances and the more pain that you can create for people, the greater the odds are they will sign up for your agenda. This is by design, folks! This is chaos. This is "remaking America. " Cap and trade, health care, unemployment numbers, this is what they intend to do: "Return the nation's wealth to its, quote, unquote, 'rightful owners,'" and I don't say that in a complimentary way. And the reason I am insistent and serious that this is being done on purpose is that (to borrow one of Obama's lines) there isn't an economist anywhere who would suggest doing this and keeping it up.

After one year of abject failure, compounding the problem, making it worse, they gotta be doing it on purpose. Now, if you want to give Obama some slack, you might say, "Rush, you know what? He came into office and he had an agenda. He's going to do what he's going to do regardless the circumstances he finds." So? Even if you want to cut him some slack saying that, you're still talking about a guy who's a lousy president, who's not recognizing circumstance and doing his agenda anyway. He is destroying the private sector he wants to fleece. He's fleecing it and destroying it at the same time. He's taking it over. There's evidence all over the place that Obama is remaking America just as he promised. He's pushing, begging, pleading, kneecapping senators now to pass cap and tax. How many people have predicted good times are just around the corner since the moment he was inaugurated? Remember? I've got the quotes coming up from Larry Summers, all these economic experts told you how hot it was going to be, how wonderful it was going to be.

They said unemployment would peak at 8%. Now, I see MSNBC running a crawl that Obama said unemployment would peak at 9%. When he's actually said, "It's going to hit ten." It's going to hit 10% and it's going to hit 10% this year, and wait 'til you hear some of the audio sound bites. CNBC... I'm surprised that that network has not been shut down by Jeff Immelt at NBC, because he runs it, but that network today and this morning is just all over this, and it ain't pretty, and it ain't supportive of Barack Obama -- and that's not what they want at NBC. So if you like some of the people at CNBC, watch today and tomorrow 'cause next week there's no telling if they'll have jobs. We have sound bites from them coming up. We also have two sound bites from CNN about how wonderful the economy is and the evidence that it's growing. The fact that you have less money is making you happier. You're being more frugal! You finally have realized your responsibilities and become disciplined people. It's just amazing.

Anytime GG. Some of my best friends are Republicans.

Gio....Pardon me but Senor Oxycontin has lost all credibility. I no longer give any creedence to anything he says.

republicans are all about family values. Check this out.

Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis is one tough cookie. Last week she opposed subsidizing school lunches for low income children during summer months saying, "Hunger can be a positive motivator." This is excellent news considering 1 in 5 Missouri kids is living in hunger, so that state is due for a productivity boon.

Stephen Colbert tipped his hat to Rep. Davis(REPUBLICAN) last night, applauding her decision, but worrying that she never rose above the rank of state representative because she developed the anti-motivating habit of eating. He called on Missourians to help her by denying her food whenever possible. That should give her her edge back.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/02/colbert-tells-viewers-to_n_224628.html

Forgot to mention Cynthia Davis is the owner of the "Back to Basics Christian Book Store. watch the vid at http://www.colbertnation.com/home

Therein lies my point. ^^^^^ Why should we as taxpayers have to raise other people's children? Why can't the parents pay for their kids' lunches? Why can't the "low income" parents realize they should stop breeding if they can't afford to have kids? Here's why, because they know they have the federal gov't (OUR money) to get them thru.


You have idiots like Brad Armpitt wanting the gov't to send money to countries whose own gov't doesn't give a crap about them, but he's trying to put a spin on it saying "We don't want the American people to spend money, we want the federal government to." Well a-duuuh how do you think the gov't would do that? By raising our taxes. How do you think those kids would get subsidized lunches? By raising our taxes.

Isn't it time for some personal accountability? Or do they rely on our gov't for that as well? Oh that's right, they DO.

What changed your mind, Jimmy?