Next Show: ...loading...

Week in Review

October 1, 2007

Audio Archive

The Canadian Dollar is more valuable than ours!
Strike at GM Over
Republican Presidential Candidates Snub Blacks
Limbaugh Snubs the Military!
More on Children’s Health Care
Rich Get Richer While Poor Get Poorer
Military Contractors: Dangerous and Expensive
Optimism in the Middle East?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • madfuq October 1, 2007 3:49 pm

    Robt when the far right can not defend their position they attack, this tactic has worked well for the so far so they will always keep doing so until it no longer workds!
    Did you really thing the right wing would attack limpbo when he sings their song? No sir the Move-On ad was attacked for pointing out that Petraeus a military general was was used as a pimp for the bush bandits and that normally this is not done. The military serves we the people not a political ideology and is made up of all parties of the political persuasion. In my estimation General Petraeus deemed himself and all of the military by being used as their shill!
    Remember when you have no defense attack! that seems to be the repuke party line even when it doesn’t make any sense!

  • Robt October 1, 2007 1:30 pm

    I would like folks to consider,
    Rushbo’s Broadcast of his “Phony Soldier” comment over the Armed Forces Network in Iraq and Afghanistan. With many US Troops hearing his partisan rhetoric condemning of many soldiers that in fact know more about the Bush Adm policies that are inane but must go out and perform their duty every single day and have or may be killed in doing so.
    But becuase they disagree with Rushbo they are called “Phony” over the Armed Forces approved talk show host’s broadcast. The troops hear this and there is no doubt this angers them and they wonder why Rushbo is even on the radio waves. I/m sure they ask themselves what Rushbo knows about them to blather like that of them as they suit up for their daily patrols of the streets of a Hostile area.
    There are times they ask themselves, “do I really have to defend his right of free speech to ridicule me”. Is this how Rush speaks of soldiers killed and returns in a cardboard box with no honors once arrived on U.S. soil with no ceremony with the Flag draped oover the coffin? That it is to disgraceful for this President to give this tribute each and every time?

  • Robt October 1, 2007 12:47 pm

    I haven’t heard of any patriotic republican screaming symbolism and taking to the Congress to vote on a non binding resolution to condemn Rushbo, have you?
    This is not the first time Limp-paw has allowed his imagination to reek from his vocal cords over military. Rush would have you believe, all military are Republican. He thinks because he’s talked to republican military people, that he now has the all knowing experience and credentials to take on those issues. He continues to lack even an ounce of respect to our Military. He would like to cause political unrest in the military for his falling ratings. What does that tell you?
    Rush is desperate for his wanning audience to return, to his ratings numbers that once were years ago. He now has that same 28% of listeners that support Bush still with no rating growth in sight.
    What is troublesome of Limp-paw is how he lobbied to be a sole voice on the Armed Forces Radio. Rush had been known to broadcast in Iraq of sunni-shia rascism. That could only stir up the anger and killing which our troops would have to deal with. Sort of poor bad propaganda that has the reverse effect that harms our own guys (type of propaganda).
    Listening to Rushbo might be good for Blackwater, but not our Troops.
    Rush can broadcast shownmanship rants against moveon, turn around and attack Max Cleland, John Kerry Jon Soltz and even McCain’s military service having cut and run from his own service opportunities. As long as its somehow political water carrying for the Repub Party. Remember, party loyalty first then country. That is the Repubs Motto.
    How does anyone afford Rushbo any credibility at all from his lacking opinions of what is and is not, when it comes to the military he was too fightened to serve himself. 28% still confuse Rushbo with Rambo.
    ” Rusbo is the Phony Soldier ”
    How does the Armed Forces Radio broadcast Rusbo exclusively and neglect those that aren’t of Rushbo’s challenged pedigree ? The military is not all republican, not a majority of republicans either. A free market deal with the majority republicans deciding the military will now listen to Rushbo because they were lobbied well by Rushbo’s benefactors.

  • madfuq September 29, 2007 11:00 pm

    I didn’t think the justices wrote about themselves on the supreme court until after they had left? Is this not so!

  • Robt September 29, 2007 3:12 pm

    As this is wk in review I find Justice Clarence Thomas’s coming out as precariously troublesome and possibly indicative of challenges that face this nation.
    Justice Thomas was indeed a very questional person. His knowledge of the law was never in question that I recall. It was Ideology over the law, his interpretations of the law, along with his personal lifes use of the law in such a manner that he felt should leave him unapproached or some might say, above such law.
    The nation was made very aware of the Justices strong ideological interpretations of the law, among other questionable characteristics. It is the Senate’s DUTY to screen in confirmation of such nominees. In said duty confirmed Thomas all the same.
    Thomas now appears to be hateful of such a Democracy that would question him during a confirmation to the Supreme Court of the land.
    I have not been aware of any active seated SCJ’s writing tell all books for profit while sctively seated. Have you?
    Should SCJ’s or anyone else for that matter in such a vital & volatile public position that is a life time appointment be putting out their personal ideologies, and personal bias’?
    Does anyone at all see some sort of conflict of interests in future cases that Justice Thomas now may have placed on himself, to be critical of his lack of predisposed positions on matter(s) that will come before him?
    Will we see him “recuse” himself in the future or avidly avenge rulings he holds disdain for making his legal premise fit his bias, disdain and ideology. These were questions raised during his confirmation that he states he holds in contempt now. And Repubs decry of teachers with tenor they dislke and are stuck with?
    I seems to me that Justice Thomas is advocating that he has a bias of any liberal issue because he felt personally strained during his confirmation. He transfers his “liberal” disdain to “Democrat” disdain. His expressed discontent for “liberals” and liberal issues places him back into an original confirming question for Thomas.
    Question being,
    Could Thomas interpret the law without too extreme of an idealogues agenda that he could provide legal address without (too much) bias when this bias (now self proclaimed publically), is that deeply rooted in his soul apparently?
    And does this place him, his granted authority, and his own personal ideals at odds with main stream American’s that may cause him to make oppressive rulings on matters of law that he percieves he is above and these matters are now for the masses?
    I recall Robert Bork’s nomination and how controvrsial & of idealogical presence of mind over leagal matter that was. There was no doubt that Bork was intelligent and studious. Yet his personal ideology came first, and the law 2nd. In my opinion mind you. I am not sure, but wasn’t Thomas the next nominee after Bork?
    I know After Harriet Miers nomination Alito would look better to those that did not pay attention.
    Is the pay and benefits of the supreme court Justices such that they are not a living wage for them to live comfortable on the tax payers, that pay their salaries. We know Tony Snow couldn’t make it off of $168,000 per yr and all the cancer treatment he was able to use off tax payers. That didn’t even have health insurance, right?
    So Mark, this SCJ “coming out” phenom that is trending should be added to your WeeK in Review at the least. Like to hear your perspective with your constitutional background?
    Is it like going to a Jury trial and having a jurist, Judge personally hateful of you and expecting justice to rule, law to be upheld?
    On one hand we can appreciate Justice Thomas’ honesty, his free market opportunities to make a dollar from the seat of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice seat in which he presides. But where was that honesty during the confirmation hearings? And does he somehow dishonor the Supreme Court with such books for profit and bias?
    I mean the man speaks of those he dislikes but successfully overcame these attackers to be confirmed.
    Thomas dislikes his confirmation? There are those that dislike the manditory drug and Alcohol test as a employee hiring process. But Thomas supports this on others in their hiring process and has no trouble.
    So, Was Justice Thomas given a drug and alcohol test prior his confirmation?
    His use of free speech is comended and praised if not unappropriate and undistinguished of the SCJ’s in my view.
    Thomas exercises his free speech not from a cycloned off free speech zone far away from being heard, he is endowed to his free speech from the people’s seat of the Supreme Court.
    But where was that honesty during the confirmation hearings?
    For Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, ADM secretaries, Generals in charge of an active war, et al should not engage in this type of free speech for profit while in office. Save it for retirement then it really is a memoir.