Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rush: "..Going FReeper on me"
Rush Limbaugh Radio Show ^ | 6-5-02 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 06/05/2002 10:41:16 AM PDT by 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".


TOPICS: Free Republic; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: freeper; rush; shanklin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 501-507 next last
To: Ken H
"There is no liberal spin on the fact that the Administration is accepting the premise that human activity is likely mostly responsible for global warming." Yes, there is. The document, which you may want to peruse, is a low level bureaucratic report, the likes of which are reproduced by the hundreds if not thousands annually on a galaxy of subjects. The report does not purport to speak for President Bush or his White House staff. To the extent the report mentions the President, it reaffirms his announced policy.

It's like in the movie Fort Apache. While Col. Thursday (Henry Fonda) treats the Indian Agent, a renegade whisky and gun runner, as "a representative of the United States Government," he sure doesn't regard him as as spokesman for President Grant.

381 posted on 06/05/2002 4:46:04 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
There is a difference in not being able to accomplish a task, and signing a bill that goes against your principles.
382 posted on 06/05/2002 4:47:36 PM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
As I said, I didn't agree with PresBush signing CFR. I happen to oppose all restrictions on political campaign contributions. As long as there is immediate and full public disclosure, I'm satisfied. But I'm a realist too.

There were many in Congress, who didn't see this law as unconstitutional. There were many others, who agreed to it, believing the SC would strike down certain portions of it, as unconstitutional law. This was one of the purest political issues, to come along, in quite some time. In my estimation, the idea was to get this over with, once and for all. It was meant to get John McCain and his partner Russ Feingold out of the way, for good. This was an issue that barely showed on the publics radar screen, but had tremendous potential for growing into a monster political issue and one that would have further clouded the atmosphere in Wash-DC.

383 posted on 06/05/2002 4:53:34 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
If Ari Fleischer had said exactly what you just said, I would agree with you.

He didn't though. He flat out said this was the President's position.

384 posted on 06/05/2002 4:55:43 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
After sifting thru all these posts I come to the conclusion that Rush isn't the only person full of themselves. I think his FReeper comment was a compliment, maybe backhanded but neverless a recognition of the intensity of feelings on this site. I certainly don't view it as a put down, and even if I did it wouldn't affect my respect for him. He may cross the line at times but so do we all. Seems to me that a number of the anti-Rush and anti-Bush comments are Freudian reflections of the poster. Self importance on both sides being one of the more obvious. George Bush and Rush are both patriots and for all I know are playing off each other for political gain for the good of the country. Rush does tend to be ham handed at times but the republican party needs to be thumped upside the head on a regular basis or it goes country club. Just my humble and Freudian opinion.
385 posted on 06/05/2002 4:59:46 PM PDT by mountainfolk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Conservatives just look silly claiming the earth isn't warming or that cars don't release hydrocarbons.

Do you actually believe that the earth is currently heating up due to human activity?

There is no scientific evidence to support this. This bogus claim is based on computer models which are vastly more complex than those used to predict tomorrow's weather with less than satisfactory results.

There is no clear evidence that the earth is currently warming for any reason.

Here is a climate fact. My current position was under several hundred feet of ice approximately 10,000 years ago. The Wisconsin glaciation was the most recent in a long, regular series of continental glaciations.

The climate of this planet has been cyclical since it developed an atmosphere. Bush should denounce human induced global warming for the lie that it is.

Regards

J.R.

386 posted on 06/05/2002 5:03:00 PM PDT by NMC EXP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
I've been desk bound all day. Say it ain't so, Ari!
387 posted on 06/05/2002 5:04:03 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
If Bush throws in a major curve ball and gets some MAJOR conservative measures covered I will hush up. It just appears that he is using the "wet finger in the wind" approach as of late.
388 posted on 06/05/2002 5:04:31 PM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Floratina
Of course Rush disagrees with the President. That's been clear since the campaign.

However, when you become a willing tool of the left to bash our President in this time of War then you become the enemy.

389 posted on 06/05/2002 5:08:58 PM PDT by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
But I said the same about brother Buchanan too and was very disappointed by Pat's disloyal behavior.

And you had every right to be disappointed by Buchanan, as he bailed out of the party to put his country first.

390 posted on 06/05/2002 5:12:41 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Bush can do one of two things. He can either stand on his conservative principles and get absolutely nothing accomplished, or he can compromise on certain aspects of his principles and achieve some substantive results. Btw, I said, compromise his principles, not surrender his principles. Big difference. Absolutists may not like that approach, but as Reagan said, 75% of something, is better then nothing at all.

In fact, here's what Ronald Reagan actually said:

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Ronald Reagan, from his autobiography, An American Life

Then again, as Rush said recently, President Eisenhower didn't like politics and saw Congress as not worth his time. So Ike went golfing and the country went about its business just fine.

391 posted on 06/05/2002 5:17:46 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: Jethro Tull
Jethro Tull Wrote in Reply #371:
The $600 dollar muffler Dubya bought you has been more than off set by the social benefits which are soaked up daily by the hoards of illegals who break into America each day.
Whatever they're doing, I'm still paying less income tax and that's more money in my pocket.
Did Lucy show you the door?
Nope, I can still post there.
392 posted on 06/05/2002 5:19:19 PM PDT by quidnunc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: NMC EXP
We can't argue at the same time that the earth isn't warming, but by the way the reason the earth is warming is because we're coming out of the last ice age, thankfully, because we all like to eat Wisconsin cheese. Sounds like a John Edwards in a $500 suit arguing out of both sides of his mouth to a jury.

The statistics I've seen show modest warming this century, most of which occurred during the first half. Why not admit it? What problem does that cause?

I believe the atmosphere keeps us nice and warm, which is good because it gets mighty cold on Mars at night. Come to think of it, it gets mighty cold there duing the day. I accept scientists who claim CO2 warms the earth. Good. Most CO2 comes from natural sources; a very small percentage of CO2 emissions come from man-made sources. Does man-made CO2 contribute in a very small percentage to the Earth's warming? Makes sense to me. Is it problem? No.

Has science made a case that warming is bad? No. Has science made a case that the warming is due to man-made rather than natural causes? No. Has science made a case that reduction of use of fossil fuels would slow or reverse the warming? No. The report says these things and more.

The liberals have a political agenda here, a desire to use this issue to dismantle certain industries, which is where I think the debate should be focused.

393 posted on 06/05/2002 5:20:16 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
And you had every right to be disappointed by Buchanan, as he bailed out of the party to put his country first.

Or another way of saying it, would be, Buchanan bailed out of the party to put his personal ambitions first. And thats coming from someone, who voted for Pat in the 1996 Colorado primary.

394 posted on 06/05/2002 5:21:55 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
And I see no reason why President Bush shouldn't call out the Europeans for getting Clinton into a sucker deal with Kyoto. By using 1990 as the benchmark date the Europeans put the compliance burden on the US because most of our improvement on C02 came before 1990 and most of theirs came after. Then the Europeans struck a deal with the third world mostly to exempt them from compliance if they'd back the European plan to stick it to North America and Japan. Why not expose this rotton nonsense for what it is instead of arguing science issues?

Thanks for pointing this out ... again. I think you put more into 3 or 4 sentances than it usually takes paragraphs to say. The Euro's can't compete with us and Japan so they try to use these binding treaties to weaken us.

395 posted on 06/05/2002 5:26:03 PM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
I accept scientists who claim CO2 warms the earth.

I'm not convinced even of that claim. It may be true, but it stands as good a chance as not of being untrue. Charts showing earth temperature vs. sunspot activity certainly speak against the CO2 theory.

I guess I'd like to read that EPA report (keeping in mind that since the Clinton administration, anything within .gov is suspect of being a jobs program for Clinton's liberal allies rather than a department if integrity) and see just what they've come up with and how they came up with it.

396 posted on 06/05/2002 5:33:53 PM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
The liberals have a political agenda here, a desire to use this issue to dismantle certain industries

I agree. The intent is to finish the de-industrialization of the west for the purpose of redistribution of wealth on a global scale.

which is where I think the debate should be focused.

I strongly disagree. This gives tacit agreement to the premises that (1) warming is currently occuring and (2) it is human induced.

This allows the opposition to set the terms of the debate, leaving us on the defensive. Never allow the enemy to occupy the high ground.

Regards

J.R.

397 posted on 06/05/2002 5:35:16 PM PDT by NMC EXP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue
"Why Rush thinks this is funny-"

I think it's funny. Of course, confronted with the situation I might be less amused, but in the abstract it's hilarious.

398 posted on 06/05/2002 5:35:18 PM PDT by sweetliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
I have been down with a miagraine all day, someone is going to have to explain this to me. What did Rush mean? Does he think 'going freeper' is good or bad?
399 posted on 06/05/2002 5:40:54 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
We can't argue at the same time that the earth isn't warming, but by the way the reason the earth is warming is because we're coming out of the last ice age,

Incidentally, we are about due for another period of continental glaciation to start. Interestingly enough, a current hypothesis is that a precoursor might be a slight increase in temperatures resulting in more precipitation (including snow).

Regards

J.R.

400 posted on 06/05/2002 5:42:18 PM PDT by NMC EXP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 501-507 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson