By David Bauder
Aug. 13, 2001 | NEW YORK (AP) --
CNN is talking with conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh -- the man who repeatedly mocked it as the "Clinton News Network."
The network has discussed putting Limbaugh on the air in some fashion, according to a USA Today report confirmed Monday by CNN executives who spoke on condition of anonymity.
"CNN is always interested in providing a diversity of on-air voices," spokeswoman Christa Robinson said. "We are not going to discuss anyone we are in talks with."
The network reportedly also has been talking with former Clinton political strategist James Carville.
Limbaugh did not return a telephone call seeking comment, but discussed it briefly on his radio show Monday.
"Am I talking with CNN?" Limbaugh asked. "No, I am listening."
Limbaugh has helped lead the charge of conservatives who contend CNN is biased against them. New CNN chief Walter Isaacson met earlier this month with some congressional Republicans, in part to hear their concerns about the network.
Signing Limbaugh would blunt some of that criticism and strike a blow at aggressive rival Fox News Channel, which is popular with conservative viewers and has mounted a strong challenge to CNN in the ratings.
It's not clear how Limbaugh would be used, or whether -- as MSNBC does with Don Imus' morning radio show -- CNN would simulcast all or part of Limbaugh's radio show, which is produced live from noon to 3 p.m.
Limbaugh recently renewed his contract with the Premiere Radio Networks through 2009, reportedly for the highest price ever in radio syndication. Through his call-in show and a 90-second radio commentary, he reaches some 20 million listeners on nearly 600 stations.
He had a syndicated television talk show that lasted four years and ended in 1996.
~~~
El Rushbo spewing on TV again. Goodness help us.
And yes, I did see Apocalypse Now Redux.
Whatever. Limbaugh's a moron -- hell, even JeffRaven admitted you're not supposed to take the guy seriously -- and him on CNN only means more opportunity to laugh at the ignorance of what he spews like putrid waste from a cess pit.
It's called "seeing both sides of the picture," guys. You should try it one day.
Want both sides of the picture? Watch "Cross-Fire."
Besides, he perpetuates the lie that Democrats are "The Left." WTF?
I like Mark Russell hits all sides. Werd.
Consider: the USSR was considered a communist country. Why? It wasn't because the country itself was communist, but because the leaders at least claimed to believe in that philosophy. Since the vast majority of Democrat politicans are either out for their own power, actually believe the crap that is communism, or both, why can't we describe them as the left? (The obvious exception being Bill Clinton, who just wanted women.)
Limbaugh (and Omega, for that matter), has such blind hatred of liberals, he'd likely have blasted a Gore-tax cut with as much venom as he reserved for Clinton's last trip to Vietnam.
No, we have a well-reasoned hatred for ignorance, stupidity, and duplicity, all of which most liberals seem to have in abundance. There are a few, like Tom and Daryus, that are quite rational, for the most part; but I've yet to find a rational, honest American liberal.
And a Gore tax cut? Is that like the fabled Clinton middle-class tax cut? Oh, wait, there IS one difference. Gore didn't even PROPOSE a tax cut.
[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
quote:
Since the vast majority of Democrat politicans are either out for their own power, actually believe the crap that is communism, or both, why can't we describe them as the left? (The obvious exception being Bill Clinton, who just wanted women.)
Ah, yes, and OF COURSE each Republican is the perfect example of an honest, not-in-it-for-either-power-or-money-or-both, incorruptable politician. Communism by itself isn't crap (so unlike the ideals YOUR party believes in), the way it has been realised is. But you wouldn't be able to see these shades of gray anyway.
quote:
No, we have a well-reasoned hatred for ignorance, stupidity, and duplicity, all of which most liberals seem to have in abundance.
At least two out of those three characteristics apply to you as well, and to all Republicans for that matter. But hey, it's hard to see the big picture when you've got a two-feet thick concrete slab in front of your head.
The Statement is pure bias, based on pure bias.
No, we have a well-reasoned hatred for ignorance, stupidity, and duplicity, all of which most liberals seem to have in abundance.
Even More Bias.
Omega, I want you to look up Stockwell Day and Preston Manning in Canadian Politics. You will see that the Canadian Alliance Party (formerly Reform Party), which is a far-right party, is full of ignorance, stupidity, and duplicity, all of which EVERY POLITICIAN seems to have in abundance.
Ignorance? Stupidity? Duplicity? Look yourself in the mirror, Omega. A true GOOD politician would not make such disparaging, and untrue remarks against a single political group. Obviously you, or Rush, don't qualify.
In the context of the discussion, I'll add another adjective for you and Rush to consider: Self-Centred. "We have a well-reasoned hatred for......" huh?
[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Instead, Bush runs up spending on his Missile Defense program, gives everybody money back, and I'm going to be laughing my ass off when the national debt has sky-rocketed and you're blaming Democrats.
Omega: one more news flash. The Green Party (you know, Ralph Nader?) is the liberal party.
Who said anything about the GOP? You're responding to my point with an irrelevant attack.
Communism by itself isn't crap
It's impossible, due to human nature. I'd call that crap.
The Statement is pure bias, based on pure bias.
What's wrong with bias? I'm not in the media. I don't claim to be unbiased. However, my statement is NOT based on bias. It's simply the only conclusion I can come to. Either the Democrat politicans who vote for these massive government expansions believe it to be good for the people thus believing that socialism is a good thing; or they believe that the expansion of government, and thus their own power, is good for them personally. Or they're totally insane, like John McCain, but then, we're talking about Democrats here.
You will see that the Canadian Alliance Party (formerly Reform Party), which is a far-right party, is full of ignorance, stupidity, and duplicity, all of which EVERY POLITICIAN seems to have in abundance.
Bias. Pure bias.
See, my generalization is not all-inclusive, and is based on a deduction. Your generalization isn't. You simply believe this for no reason except your own cynicism.
A true GOOD politician would not make such disparaging, and untrue remarks against a single political group.
A) In your opinion.
B) I'm not a politician.
C) Untrue?
You're just jealous that I didn't include you in the list of rational liberals, aren't you, Tahna? Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that that was a list of ALL rational liberals. You're in there. 
Gore did propose a tax cut.
No, he didn't. He proposed an IRS-administered spending program. And you know that that would never have materialized anyway. He's a Democrat.
For the lower classes, the people who actually need one.
Just what do you think the "rich" (i.e.: anyone not dependant on the government) are going to do with their tax cut, eh? They're gonna SPEND IT. And where's the money gonna go? To other WORKERS. It's called economics, Jeff.
I'm going to be laughing my ass off when the national debt has sky-rocketed and you're blaming Democrats.
We. Have. A. LARGE. Surplus.
Fine, you have a point there. Just remember that not all Democrats act the way you think. And also remember that not all Republicans act the way you think.
Bias. Pure bias.
See, my generalization is not all-inclusive, and is based on a deduction. Your generalization isn't. You simply believe this for no reason except your own cynicism.
Those statements were based on news reports on Day, Manning, and the rest of the Canadian Alliance Party. There have been offensive and racist remarks, strange turnarounds, bouts of hypocrisy, and the like that justify my statements. These are FACTS. Unfortunately, I have little time to poke around to find the exact articles. That's why I asked you to look them up yourself.
You're just jealous that I didn't include you in the list of rational liberals, aren't you, Tahna? Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that that was a list of ALL rational liberals. You're in there.
Uh no. Who said I was jealous anyways?
No, he didn't. He proposed an IRS-administered spending program. And you know that that would never have materialized anyway. He's a Democrat.
Can you say anything about non-conservatives without the word "Democrat" or "Liberal" or "Left-Wing" in there? Just wondering.
[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
You're so right. Limbaugh kind of makes me feel ill, and I'm somewhat conservative, but he's fun to listen to... Certainly, more fun than James Carville. Have you guys ever heard that buffoon? I keep waiting for those little veins on his forehead to burst, spilling all over his hillbilly friends (er, inbreds) who are grillin' up some squirrel in his sink. Limbaugh is no Einstein, but Carville gives new meaning to Ralph Wiggum's phrase, "I'm special!"
quote:
Can you say anything about non-conservatives without the word "Democrat" or "Liberal" or "Left-Wing" in there? Just wondering.
Of course he can't. When one cannot defend, he attacks.
Oh, Omega, trickle-down economics has never worked, so please stop pretending it will. Do you know anything about history ... ?
quote:
I know the economy of the eighties, whereas you apparently don't, so I wouldn't go making claims about trickle-down that are patently false, were I you.
That's rather doubtful, considering that trickle-down economics failed miserably, as anyone who knew the economy of the eighties would be able to tell you.
Obviously, you need to pick up a history book at some point in your life.
[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
quote:
According to the Federal Reserve, in 1990 the richest 1 percent of America owned 40 percent of its wealth -- the greatest level of inequality among all rich nations, and the worst in U.S. history since the Roaring Twenties. Furthermore, the richest 20 percent owned 80 percent of America -- meaning, of course, that the bottom four-fifths of all Americans owned only one fifth of its wealth.Another revealing way of expressing this statistic is that the top 1 percent owned more than the bottom 90 percent combined.
Oh, yeah, the old pee on my leg and tell me it's raining theory worked just fine. For the very wealthy.
However, the rich did not get to be rich (or, did not stay rich) by spending their money in the amounts needed for the "trickle-down" theory to work.
You've been the apologist before for Ronnie usually going on about the rising tide and all that rot...I think it's clear that that did not happen in the 80's and does not happen when wealth "trickles down".
One waters the tree at the roots to help it grow as a whole.
Trickle down is a poor excuse for an economic policy. It is simply an excuse for the wealthy to get to the trough first.
[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Or if you are not politically or philosophically inclined, go to the Starships & Technology forum and tell them to grow up becasue it's just a television show. That seems to be the speed you want to run at.
quote:
We. Have. A. LARGE. Surplus.
How could I miss that one.
We have a projected surplus.
Or had until Dubya decided to buy off the voters...like he was holding a hot dog roast and beer party back in the political day.
You and Jeff have yet to make a real argument. You just spout trite cliches. Come on, Jay. You're a librarian. You have access to massive amounts of information. Look something up, for once. I'd ask Rob to, but he's busy.
quote:
One waters the tree at the roots to help it grow as a whole.
If the leaves get no sunlight, you can water the roots till you're sore, and the tree will STILL die. It's the leaves that do the work that feeds the whole tree.
I love it when folks use poor analogies.
What do I remember about the 80's? Hm.. my 9th through 17th birthdays, and thousands of people coming straight out of college into high-paying jobs, something whach hadn't occurred ever before. We had to coin a whole new word for these people... Yuppies. Now you're trying to tell me that they were all starving? No, I think not.
I believe very fervently that the media is, in response to both the financial and social conditions that they find themselves in-shall we say corporate mergers? shall we say accusations of 'liberal bias'?, are becoming the voice of the conservative elements of our society. I fear in time that our media will not be so free, and that we will have not a government controlled media, but a corporate owned media. This media will support the conservative caucus and oppose the liberal and independent caucus in this country. Why? The conservative caucus supports 'Big Business', which finances and operates the 'Media'. If I play nice with you, will you play nice with me?
As for the surplus, I am reading both the Economist of UK and Business Week. The Economist has stated that our surplus is kaput. For instance, to pay the rebates, the government has to borrow money. As for the 'Son of Star Wars' program, there is no money for this program.
[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
Because trickle-down economics had nothing to do with the recession we were in. No, not at all. Oh, did you forget about the recession? We had one until Clinton/Gore, as I remember.
Let's see. Reagan gets into office, his economic package goes through Congress in '81 with about as much trouble as a hot knife through butter (thanks in great deal to the boll-weevil Dems), and shortly thereafter, unemployment is high, inflation is rampant, and people are losing their homes at record numbers, and VOILA! We're in the midst of a full recession.
Trickle-down economics did nothing. Any idiot with a degree in economics could tell you that. It only works when the rich spend money, and if the rich ain't spending, the less fortunate aren't reaping the rewards.
To quote Robert De Niro in The Untouchables You got nothing. You have said nothing at all in defense of your point. Which is nothing new for you at all.
So again, I say congratulations on the 'look over there' style of argumentation you have made into an art form.
As for Fo2, well, what is there to say other than that post was next to meaningless. Trees need dirt too. And air. And all sort of other things.
But when pouring water (money) on a tree (the economy) to make it grow, watering (puting money into the system) the leaves (hands of the wealthy) does nothing. For water (money) to help trees (the economy) to grow, water the roots (the people).
Class warfare again. You draw a distinction between the people and the "wealthy". That raises the question of what the leaves and sunlight would REALLY represent in your analogy.
*grumblegrumbleUPDATEgrumble*
I had a post earlier, and it got fried when I submitted it. Charles was updating.
Reagan gets into office, his economic package goes through Congress in '81 with about as much trouble as a hot knife through butter (thanks in great deal to the boll-weevil Dems), and shortly thereafter, unemployment is high, inflation is rampant, and people are losing their homes at record numbers, and VOILA! We're in the midst of a full recession.
Jeff, you're an idiot. Inflation, unemployment, and home loss were high during Carter, too. Higher, in fact. That's why Reagan passed the tax cut. Notice that around '83, around a year after the tax cut, we started having an incredible economy? Coincidence?
Oh, did you forget about the recession? We had one until Clinton/Gore, as I remember.
No, we had a recession until about a year BEFORE C/G. And what does that have to do with supply-side? It was caused by a tax INCREASE.
quote:
Jeff, you're an idiot
Gee. How nice. The boy-wonder who bitches and screams about ad-hominems calls people "idiots" to get his point across. Gee, Ommie, I didn't know that was a valid debating tactic.
I shouldn't really be surprised, though. Omega's long had a double standard in debates. He gets to call people idiots, declare himself "winner" of threads, demand lengthy treatises about political issues, and avoid answering questions he doesn't like (or can't answer). More over (and just as amusing), he calls himself an independent non-partisan, then sides with the Republican Party ("we got rid of him" when discussing Nixon's impeachment)
Oh, I can even predict his response to this. "I already answered that!" Or something along those lines, and he'll use some more ad-hominems, turn red in the face, and want to smash a hammer into my face, but settle for kicking his cat or something.
quote:
It was caused by a tax INCREASE.
Oh, right, the one Bush Sr. signed into law? "Read my lips: no new taxes." Oh, I know, don't tell me: "It's all the Democrat's fault!" The same tired arguement you make without fault, without reason, indeed, without one truly non-Conservative partisan thought.
We had a recession for a long time before George sr. was in office, so obviously the trickle-down plan didn't quite work.
*In fact, Carter proposed tax cuts, smaller government, and tight credit to control the economy
Or: I could just repeat the tired line offered by you Conservatives during our debates on Gore v. Bush. Whenever the Clinton/Gore economy was brought up, you screamed and yelled and went blue in the face, and said, "the President has nothing to do with the economy! It's the Federal Reserve Board!"
Look how fast you change your tunes. You want to give Reagan credit for the 80's recession? Be my guest, but that means you give Clinton/Gore credit for the economy in the late 90's.
quote:
Well, in that case, you'd water ALL the roots, yes? Because watering only the small roots isn't going to do the tree a darned bit of good.
The small roots? No, the poor roots. You know, the ones fucked over by inadequate minimum wage, the ones who can't afford health care without assistance and wouldn't even recieve health care if you had your way ... the ones for whose schools you'd like to take away money from. You know, the same people the Republican party has a long history of trampling over.
quote:
Inflation, unemployment, and home loss were high during Carter, too. Higher, in fact. That's why Reagan passed the tax cut. Notice that around '83, around a year after the tax cut, we started having an incredible economy? Coincidence?
I never said the economy was that good under Carter, but it got worse under Reagan before it got better. You mind posting some sources or references or something to make people think you're not a complete and utter ... oh, wait, I'm trying to get you to stick to you "ad-hominem" beliefs, so I guess it wouldn't get me anywhere to sink to your ("you're an idiot!") level.
So I won't.
[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
A word to the wise, Jeff. Try not to use the word "Republican" in there.
No, we didn't. We had a recession in the seventies and early eighties. Then it was ended by the Reagan tax cuts. We had the best economy in history, until taxes were increased again, and we had a brief recession. Then things shaped up again, and we had the fast growth back. But after a decade of neglect, things are slowing down again.
I could just repeat the tired line offered by you Conservatives during our debates on Gore v. Bush. Whenever the Clinton/Gore economy was brought up, you screamed and yelled and went blue in the face, and said, "the President has nothing to do with the economy! It's the Federal Reserve Board!"
Ah, but we had reason to say that. See, Clinton didn't DO anything to stimulate the economy. He didn't do anything, PERIOD. Reagan, OTOH, DID help stimulate the economy, with massive tax cuts. You honestly think that interest rates are going to change a massive recession into a massive growth? Then you need to study the economy.
You want to give Reagan credit for the 80's recession? Be my guest, but that means you give Clinton/Gore credit for the economy in the late 90's.
Non sequitor. Why? One is responsible or not responsible for something because of what they DID, not because of where they happened to be when it happened.
The small roots? No, the poor roots. You know, the ones fucked over by inadequate minimum wage, the ones who can't afford health care without assistance and wouldn't even recieve health care if you had your way ... the ones for whose schools you'd like to take away money from. You know, the same people the Republican party has a long history of trampling over.
Well, if that wasn't irrational, not to mention irrelevant...
I never said the economy was that good under Carter, but it got worse under Reagan before it got better.
Yes, because A) it took time for him to do something, and B) it takes time for something done to take effect. You seem to like pinning EVERYTHING on the President, whether he was responsible or not. You judge responsibility by what someone DID. Or rather, we rational people do. You, OTOH, probably blame Bush for the slow economy that we have now, even though it started eighteen months back, and what Bush has done hasn't had time to take effect. Bush is the President, after all.
[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
quote:
You, OTOH, probably blame Bush for the slow economy that we have now
No, the Republican controlled Congress, obviously.
And in four years, when any hope we had of paying off the national debt is long gone, I (and the nation) will blame George W. Bush.
*taps foot impatiently*
quote:
*taps foot impatiently*
Actually, I had it destroyed when I moved.
Otherwise, I'd be more than happy to lend it to Omega so he could blow his brains out.
[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
Just kiddin, Tom
1974 to 1976
Recession. Caused by OPEC embargo.
1975
Pres. Ford orders a $800 billion rebate for the tax payers.
1981 to 1983
Recession. Latin America suffers catastrophic economic losses. Losses impact America. Worst recession.
1991 to 1993
Recession.
2001
Slowing economy. Developing countries, such as Argentina and Turkey, are experiencing economic crisises. Pres. Bush orders a $1.6 trillion rebate.
Folks, we may pull out of this mess. However, we will have a very large consequence to face.
Tax cuts are great, when they are balanced against the needs of the nation and the world. If they are designed simply to get votes, then this is not so great. The Republicans, on top of the historical rebates of the President, are attempting to have other tax cuts in the hundreds of billions passed in the environmental bill (to energy producing and distributing companies) and the health care reform bill (to HMOs).
Do you know what will be impacted?
Let's give an example for our beloved firebrand, Omega.
The Missile Defense Plan
Adding insult to injury, Omega, we are borrowing money to pay the rebates.
[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
You do mean the government and the world, right?
The single question when passing any bill is, "What's best for the people of this country?" This tax cut is good. There is absolutely no reason why it could cause defecit problems, so long as spending is controlled.
Adding insult to injury, Omega, we are borrowing money to pay the rebates.
Yes, we're giving out more in this one year than the surplus. It'll be paid for next year, when THAT surplus comes in. There's nothing wrong with defecit spending, so long as you know exactly what you're doing, and are extremely careful.
quote:
There's nothing wrong with defecit spending, so long as you know exactly what you're doing, and are extremely careful.
You can't know exactly what you're doing, that's why it's called defecit spending. There is no way to predict what will happen one year down the road. The surplus might, shall we say, not be sufficient.
Exert caution by NOT spending more than you have. Basic rule, always works.
quote:
We'd love to, but they keep tacking on new spending!
Yeah, I agree, let's cut that damn missile defense system out of the budget.
The missile defense system was ALREADY factored into the budget. Therefore it is NOT 'additional' spending.
*points and laughs*
quote:
That doesn't make it any less of a moronic proposition or moronic undertaking.
quote:
Nothing could.
Wait. Is Omega agreeing with Stingray? That the missile defense system is a moronic proposition and undertaking? Excellent!
First said:
quote:
The missile defense system was ALREADY factored into the budget. Therefore it is NOT 'additional' spending.
Stingray said:
quote:
That doesn't make it any less of a moronic proposition or moronic undertaking.
Clearly, referring to the missile defense system.
You said:
quote:
Nothing could
Therefore, one would naturally assume you're saying, "nothing would make it any less of a moronic proposition or moronic undertaking."
Yes? No? And you call me ignorant. Speaking of which, isn't that an "ad-hominem"?
[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
BINGO! Now think about this REAL hard, and try not to hurt yourself in the process. Here's a hint: I couldn't care less.
Which means it's SO NOT moronic, you can't make it any more NOT moronic.
Clever restructuring of the double negative.
quote:
"Nothing could make it any LESS moronic."
Well, see, I completely agree with that. Missile defense is the most moronic thing the Bush White House has gotten itself behind, it'd be hard to make it more moronic.
quote:
The missile defense system was ALREADY factored into the budget. Therefore it is NOT 'additional' spending.
That is impossible. Or at the least bit illegal. The ABM treaty still is in force (regardless of Double U's trying to get it tossed out like yesterday's french fry.)
quote:
That's not what I said. I said you couldn't make it LESS moronic, not moreso.
Yes, because it's already the most moronic. I suppose you could make it less moronic, but you're right: you can't make it more moronic when it's already the most moronic thing around.
As for the legality missile defense funding, the funding is for research, not implementation. I doubt research is covered by the treaty.
There is no 'in force' for BILATERAL (NOT 'International', for noone else has signed on) treaties of this kind... because there's no body that exists to enforce them. It's strictly voluntary. (PoliSci 101).
quote:
That's not what I said. I said you couldn't make it LESS moronic, not moreso.
Well, you're 100% correct. You can't make it less moronic then it already is.
quote:
Words of WisdomIf you give a Democrat a cow he will milk it,
drink all he wants and give the rest to the poor.If you give a Republican a cow he will pay a Democrat to milk the cow for less than the minimum wage, then fabricate a milk shortage and then sell it the milk at grossly inflated prices.
...and Rush and Fox News will swear there is a milk shortage.