Rush: "..Going FReeper on me"

Rush Limbaugh Radio Show ^ | 6-5-02 | Rush Limbaugh

[Matchett-PI]

Around 1:20 PM, judt before he play the latest Paul Shanklin parody entitled, "BAD MOOD ON THE RIGHT", he said, now this is just in fun, and "I don't want anybody "GOING FREEPER" on me".

[Dog]

Irrespective of whatever effects my replies might engender, your celebatory posting of a Bush-bot robot is much more enlightning. Robots are unthinking contraptions which do whatever they're told by their masters. Most folks usually have an aversion to living and thinking like that.

Miss Marple disagrees with your point of view and you have to make it personal???

[Smile-n-Win]

Maybe it would be helpful if he heard from the ones who are capable of critical thought and don't wear tinfoil hats more often.

That's right. We should write him more often.

[colorado tanker]

Regarding greenhouse gases, how did the earth manage to come out of the last ice age and melt thousands of miles of glaciers, snow and ice without the burning of fossil fuels?

Well, since the overwhelming majority of greehouse gases come from natural sources, they may well be responsible. I dunno. The most plausible theories I've seen are that the ice ages are caused by solar cycles or cycles of greenhouse gases or some combination of the two.

My only point is that industrial activity produces some greenhouse gases and some portion of those gases produces radiant heat. I believe the warming due to human activity is negligible, and I haven't found anything in the report to tell me my belief is wrong.

[Ken H]

Agreed that the report was not written by conservatives but it was accepted by the President, as Ari Fleischer reiterated.

The official position that human activity is likely mostly responsible for global warming gives a big boost to Leftists in the arena of public debate on environmental policy, IMO.

[Poohbah]

Those are the ones who are stupid and bull-headed enough to sit out an election rather than vote for him again.

By and large, they didn't vote for him the first time around.

And that's what makes them so furious--they played the "slow-roll the GOP until we get every single thing we want" game, and lost.

But, yes, I do agree with your assessment--they are stupid and bull-headed.

[Smile-n-Win]

We should write him more often.

Oh yes, and when we write, we should remember to mention we are Freepers.

[jackbill]

I think you nailed it. I don't believe it's a coincidence that Rush began this independent streak right around the time word leaked out that O'Reilly was starting a nationwide talk show to challenge Rush.

Time for you guys to refill your tin-foil.

Rush has said, time and time again, that he is a conservative who happens to be a Republican. He has a set of core principles, which he calls "conservative". Most of them I agree with. And I consider myself a conservative who happens to be a Republican.

That said, I will not drink RNC Kool-aid, nor will I drink Bush/Rove Kool-aid. And Rush isn't drinking it either.

Most of us recognize that we can't get everything that we want. We got a tax cut and we got the promise of some reasonable judges. We can live with a certain amount of "waffling", but one reaches a limit.

When Bush pushes a hugh increase in the education budget and caves on vouchers, when he signs CFR after admitting that, in his view, it is unconstitutional, when he supports expansion of Americorps, when he imposes steel tariffs (this one is goine to bite us big time), when he goes along with massive spending increases (pork laden) and refuses to use a veto, when he refuses to use his bully pulpit to promote his "conservative" ideas, when he backs off of privatization of Social Security, etc., etc., it becomes more than some of us are willing to swallow.

[Ole Okie]

As for Taliban Pat Buchanan, convince me that ANY true conservative presidential candidate would choose a radical-leftist lesbian as a running mate.

Desperation, quid. Desperation accounts for said choice.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

Here's a direct quote from the report, as read verbatim by Fred Barnes, last night on Fox " The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly( what kind of syntax is that?,I digress) due to human activities,BUT, we cannot rule out that some significant parts of these changes are also a reflection of natural variabilities." Fred Barnes disagreed with the premise that there was any shift in Bush's position. He said that this was the most important sentence from the whole report and it wasn't getting enough coverage.

[colorado tanker]

I agree the statement that human activity is "most likely" responsible for global warming is wrong and someone up the chain of review should have removed it. Some portion is due to human activitiy, but because the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases come from natural sources and because the Earth is still recovering from the last Ice Age and also the Little Ice Age natural sources are the "most likely" cause of the warming of the last 100 years.

That said, the report merely attributes unquantified "warming" to human activity and the body of the report makes clear that science has not determined the amount of warming is due to natural causes versus human, the future trend, whether the warming is harmful and whether cutting back on fossil fuel consumption would reverse the warming. The report clearly states that the present state of the science justifies the President's position and does not support Kyoto.

Of course, this report is not a position statement, but rather is a requirement of the Rio treaty that the US bureaucracy report to the UN bureaucracy periodically on conditions in the US. This is a very low level document that is now being used for political purposes.

By taking the "most likely" line out of context the New York Times and the envirowackos spun the report, falsely claiming it supports Kyoto and falsely claiming a change in position by the administration. What chaps my keester is that Rush and other conservatives spun the story the liberal direction to make some cheap bushbash points, ignoring what the report as a whole says. And when the President and Ari reiterate the same position the Administration has had all along, Rush claims credit for moving Bush away from a position he never took! Ain't politics a grand thing!

[anniegetyourgun]

You know, #239 is a pretty good indication that some folks around here have no argument - just ad homimen and meaningless comparisons. They lost and they're still angry. My guess is that they'll never get over it.....

[Reagan Man]

Let's be clear. What you said to Miss Marple, in my book, was a personal attack.

Just because people trust and believe in President Bushes leadership and overall policy agenda, doesn't mean they support him on every single issue. In fact, I know thats not the case, for both MissMarple and myself.

MissMarple can defend herself, better then I can. But just for the record, I've seen her support and oppose this President and in both situations, she has laid out, rational and intelligent explanations to support her positions. Some people may not like those positions, but she is open about where she stands. For that, I respect her.

Cutting taxes for working American's reduces the amount of money Congress can redistribute and that leads to shrinking the bloated federal bureaucracy. President Bush secured the largest tax cut since Reagan was in office. That's a fact. It could have been larger and could have come sooner, but it was a tremendous accomplishemnt. I'd look for more tax cuts from the Bush administartion, in the future.

I have no idea what you mean by, ignoring the defense of this country. If you're refrring to the prosecution of the war on terrorism by Bush and his people, I happen to think they're doing an excellent job in serving, protecting and defending America. If you're looking for perfection in this President, or any human being for that matter, you'll be sorely disappointeed, time and again. No one is perfect!

[Reagan Man]

See RE:#313

[quidnunc]

Jackbill wrote in Reply #308:

Rush has said, time and time again, that he is a conservative who happens to be a Republican

In thje past Rush has made it known that he was a loyal Republican.

Today he specifically and in no uncertain terms disassociated himself from the GOP.

I'm afraid that Rush's principles are not as rock-solid as he would have us believe.

In the past he has taken callers to task for demanding that candidates display absolute ideological purity even when it harms or even nullifies their chance of being elected.

Now Rush is the one demanding ideological purity.

He not just a fatuous fool, he's also a hypocrit!

[Reagan Man]

Okay WRhine.

Just wanted to see, if you'd clarify your remarks for us all.

Thanks

[colorado tanker]

So you think Rush is acting solely out of noble conservative principles, eh? Is that why he's spinning the story the same way as the New York Times and why he's the latest love of Tom Brokaw and Howard Fineman????

[Texaggie79]

Once again, the Global warming u-turn is just one of many.

[Jethro Tull]

#47: "Politics involves compromises and a politician who can't get elected can't accomplish jacksquat."

Well thanks to your definition, I must tip my hat to Dubya.

He not only compromises, but he also can't accomplish jacksquat.

Dubya, the ultimate Pubbie...

[Texaggie79]

Because anyone that has listened to Rush over a week knows that Rush respects Bush. The G.W. Algore was just a little fun with criticism.