Kick'em Out, Ya That's The Ticket
From Digbys' blog:
I hear liberals say in frustration that they'd like to leave the country or that they'd like to secede, things like that. But I never hear them say that they'd like to kick their political rivals out of the country. Perhaps it's a fine distinction, but it's a distinction nonetheless. Via media Matters, here's Rush:
We just had Stephen Breyer saying, oh, yeah, totally appropriate, we must import what they're doing around the world in other democracies, it will help buttress their attempt to establish the rule of law, and we might learn something, too. Well, here's something I'd like to import. I'd like to import the ability that the Brits are doing to export and deport a bunch of hate-rhetoric filled mullahs and imams that are stoking anti-American sentiment. Wouldn't it be great if anybody who speaks out against this country, to kick them out of the country? Anybody that threatens this country, kick 'em out. We'd get rid of Michael Moore, we'd get rid of half the Democratic Party if we would just import that law. That would be fabulous. The Supreme Court ought to look into this. Absolutely brilliant idea out there.
Digby: That first amendment has outlived its usefulness now that the right people are in charge anyway. (Calling the government "jack booted thugs" would be fine under certain circumstances, but not in others, I assume.)So Rush just openly fantasizes in front of his 20 million listeners about deporting Michael Moore and half (only half?) of the Democratic Party. I'm sure all those Real Americans in their offices and cars just sat back and thought, "yeah, wouldn't it be great is we could just get rid of all those people once and for all?" In modern parlance I think that could be called "political cleansing." It's been done before --- usually by communists, the modern republican's favorite role models. Totalitarians 'R Us.
About as sick as you can get. Back to rehab for you Rushbo. If one talks of destroying America, Ok, I'm with you. Dissenters, repairing America, sorry all you phonies but that's called freedom! These people, including one who comments here are lost souls. They have completely lost the American way. Exactly what formed this country, Exactly what gives them a voice when they are not in power, now is taboo to "good Americans". These are truly the people that hate America, the American way and all that it stands for.
Update: From the August 15 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left.
I think this is called paranoid schizophrenia...yep rehab is certainly in order.
posted by Ron at 5:14 PM
22 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I guess you don't listen to Rush very much this is Rush demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. His point is that if Breyer says its okay to look at other countries laws to rule on our constitution (which is absurd) why not look at what the Brits are doing to combat terrorism. The Brits are throwing out islamic extremist or people who speak out about the destruction of the country. Now obviously Michael Moore and left wing hollywood types are not suggesting attacks against americans so therefore they would not be thrown out of the UK or the US (but maybe they do want to over-throw this current government) Anyway the point is it is absurd for a US Supreme Court Justice to use foreign law as a guide because foreign law has nothing to do with interpreting the US constitution and if you want to look at other countries laws you better be careful because you can get a justice who might look at something like what the brits are doing which obviosly flies againnst everything the US stands for. wow i typed a lot of words.
Mark
way to miss the point once again in la la land.
He has a point in his satirical commentary that you just happen to glaze right over when the leftist furor kicks in. Being political and attacking the country are two very different things. Michael Moore saying half the country is stupid rednecks is different than promoting a political ideal. That is where the left has gone wrong. When you think that outward name-calling and blatant undermining is par for the course in the political arena you have lost sight of what makes this country great.
The man aint funny he's sick. Name calling and blantant underminding??!! Sounds like the Rush mister to me. Did every thing he could to overthrow the Clinton administration. Face it, the guy is as lame as they come.
This post has been removed by the blog administrator
Censorship Ron?
Every time the lame game and below averagejoe post here their readership triples. For all thier snide coments to the host of this blog, they seem to always linger, like a bad smell.
They still have not recuited a single republican to go to Iraq or Afganistan. The lame game still has not said why he is too good for the military. Is the lame game working with the military to enlist his young students? If not , Why not?
We need more men and women, now. Your jobs, careers can wait, what better way to show you support Bush than to join up?
Why do you not trust Rove enough to serve under him? What better way to serve Delay than to go kill Iraqi's for Freedom?
Ok that comment was rather flippant. What I really ment to say was he is an evil, sick, despicable, drug addled fuck who has, because of his position in the world, done more to decieve, divide and destroy this country than anybody in modern times. Ya that's the ticket.
the only posts removed are ads trying to sell something or something unrelated to the blog. Please believe me its true! :-)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ah yes the name calling saw that coming a mile away. Why is it you liberals or should I say progressives rail against Rush for name calling (which by the way is done mostly in humor) and then in the same sentence start caling him names if its bad for Rush to do it why is it okay for you to do it? and by the way when you do it I don't think you are trying to be funny at all you are just being mean and have no real arguement or at least refuse to offer one hmmm i wonder why that is?
Mark
Anonymous number 7:
Why can't you respond to what I actually post?
You have one point and one point only...I don't serve in the military...
So that means I can't say anything about it...what a lame train of thought...in addition, my school has an ROTC program that I work with and encourage students to join. Just because I do not join does not mean I do not admire those who take the calling to carry out the most important job in the country.
The military's job is to protect our country..now I know the libs can't admit that Islamic terrorist are trying to destroy our way of life, you guys want to have cook-outs and bond fires with them...but they want to kill you...
Luckily we have leaders who can think past the pot-brownie, mushroom eating hippies of "peace" and see that we need to protect ourselves against people who run airplanes into buildings and blow themselves up in playgrounds, markets, shopping centers, buses and subways.
We saw how well the UN and Clinton did with their "talking"...multiple attacks on the military around the world and, really, no leader gave a crap about them...
They just allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons and 9-11 to be planned (my blog, which you are too scared to comment on conical that perfectly).
So the lame game does help with the ROTC program. Since he is a high school teacher, that would be the JROTC. Most kids I knew in JROTC did not enlist.
Why does he not tell the kids to enlist at 17? My parents signed the papers so I could join at 17. Since I could remember I wanted to join the military, to be a troop. Why does the lame game not share the same sentiment? They can finish their school if they survive. We need troops now. What does the lame game tell his students when they ask him why he is too good for the military?
If it is absurd to consider foreign law in forming decisions on Constitutional cases/questions, I guess we will have to admit that the 10 Commandments have nothing to do with US law, and that judges should also not consider English Common Law, the Code of Hammurabi, or any other source or study of law. I guess jurisprudence began in America in the 1780s and existed nowhere before.
And no other system of law existing today has any value in deciding complex issues of law in the 21st century, I suppose.
I'm certainly not saying what I said about Lamebrain in humor. It's not for "entertainment" purposes either. I'm saying it out of pure anger, that's how I get when I look pure evil in the eye.
I just love how you libs resort to constant name calling and hate and then just blindly say it is the right that does it with really nothing to back it up...there are dozens of examples on this page alone for you guys.
Ron,
Seems like when they get caught at hate mongering then they say it was just humor. There is of course nothing humorous about hate. Unless you just don't care. Identifying wrongful action for what it is is not name calling; it is telling the truth. I agree, don't waste your time with them. Organize and take action.
Jim:
all of those historical laws were used to draft the constitution. Once the constitution was ratified it stood on its own. Supreme court justices should only use the document itself to determine whether or not something is constitutanl that point seems so common sense to me i don't even begin to understand how somebody could think otherwise.
The legislature can use the 10 commandments english coomon law, natural law or even the rossetta stone if they want they are legislators and are accountable to the voters. Supremes are not their job is to use the constitution (the actual text) to determine whether or not something is constitutional when they go beyond what is written in that document they are doing the job of legislators which is very dangerous.
with all that said I do see your point about other laws through out history should and could be used to DRAFT laws but I don't think they should be used to interpret OUR CoNSTITUTION> thats all thank you and good night
Mark
Wait a second, no one comes to my blog after I post here...
And I don't name call the host either, jackass. I happen to respect his lunatic views, and we even agree from time to time.
Oh, that mighty name-calling "jackass"...
How does it make you feel, being the one to say "I don't" and then do, all in one sentence?
Must make you feel pretty powerful, eh?
Have you attained the level of neocon-ism yet?
And, FYI, the buddy you have here... his blog; it's seemed like this is the type of blog that is representative of one such as yours, so, no one would go to yours, either.
How does it feel to be a victim of your own type of generalizations of liberals?
Mark,
Thanks for reasonable comments. But I would ask, if the Constitution once ratified stood on its own, why was it that the first thing they did was to add 10 amendments? Why did they even include a provision for amendments?
Further, I would ask if justices should "only use the document itself" to decide law, why should anybody, including "originalists", be able to refer to the writings of the drafters to understand their "intent" or study the language and culture of the 18th century to understand what the words and phrases "meant" at the time?
Post a Comment
<< Home