Politics - 10 August 2007

When Will Stuff Come Out on Obama?




RUSH: Janet in... Godley, Illinois?

CALLER: (Laughs)

RUSH: Is that really Godley, Illinois?

CALLER: Yes, it is.

RUSH: Well, Janet, welcome to the program.

CALLER: Thank you. I am so excited about talking to you, and I'm so nervous. I wanted to talk about a different aspect of Obama's candidacy. No one has touched on his very far left stance on social issues such as abortion, and there was an incident here in Illinois about seven years ago, at Christ Hospital -- a suburban hospital to Chicago -- where babies who were born alive after a botched abortion, were left to die in linen closets and a nurse exposed it, and she was of course fired, and there were demonstrations, and it led the Illinois legislature to formulate the Infants Born Alive Act, which stated that infants who were born alive as the result of a botched abortion, could not be left to die, and Barack Obama voted against it.

RUSH: May I stop you right there?

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: Don't lose your train of thought.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: What does it say about the state of Illinois and the country in general, when such a law is required?

CALLER: Yes, I know. It is very sad.

RUSH: A baby born alive in a botched abortion can't be killed!

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: (Gags.)

CALLER: I know. It's pretty sick.

RUSH: Okay, what did Obama do?

CALLER: He voted against that act. He went on rerecord and voted against a law to protect those children.

RUSH: Well, I’m sure he had a reason! What was it?

CALLER: You know, I could not for the life of me tell you. I'm sure it was to protect the right of the woman to choose.

RUSH: It is that, but I'll tell you what it is? There is something corrupting about the Democrat Party. Do you know that both Bill Clinton and Al Gore were pro-liers?

CALLER: No, I did not know that.

RUSH: Yeah, they were. When you seek national office in the Democrat Party, one of the first things you have to do is cash in that chip, and you have to pay homage to the sacrament of the religion of that party which is abortion. You don’t' stand a prayer of getting the nomination in the Democrat Party if you do anything that would make any abortion harder to accomplish or to get done. So that's Obama. It's clear to me he had national aspirations at the time, then he did not want to do anything that would anger the NAGs and the militant feminists, and the general leftists in the party.

CALLER: Right. I think that should be publicly known during this campaign, how far, far left he is.

RUSH: This stuff will all come out. I'm going to tell you something. Aside from the most-informed audience in media, which is you and everybody else listening to this program, most people really start paying attention to this stuff after Thanksgiving, when the primaries start.

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: I'll give you a great example. At this time in 2004 on the Democrat side, who was all the hullabaloo about?

CALLER: Ummmm, was it John Kerry?

RUSH: No, it was Howard Dean.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: It was Howard Dean. He was raising all this money, and why he was raising all this money, and why he's collecting more money than anybody ever knew existed out on the Internet! He's setting new examples for everybody to follow! Howard Dean, everywhere he went, was the frontrunner. And then they had this little thing called the Hawkeye Cauci, and they actually started voting, and he was nowhere! He was nowhere. John Kerry comes out of there as the guy who wins it, and that's what launched Kerry, because they said, "Wooo! He's the guy! Look at the surprise," because everybody had assumed, because the wonks and the pundits who paid attention to this stuff and believed all the polls that are out there. Howard Dean was in exactly the same place as Hillary Clinton is.

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: Maybe not in fundraising, maybe not as much money, but "Presumptive nominee, only a matter of time," but most people didn't start paying attention to Howard Dean and see how weird he was until late in the year, late in November and early December. So this stuff about Obama... (sigh) I don't know that Democrats are going to bring it out about him. If he happens to get the nomination or if he's chosen to be veep, you wait. This stuff will all come out. It's just waiting, but you don't want to bring it out now. People forget about it. The timing of this kind of stuff is crucial.

2007-08-10 12:13:39 · 12 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

uk as a base for a missile launcher, or make some similar use of it?

2007-08-10 12:09:59 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

"Crackdown on Illegal Workers Appears Eminent." Today the Bush administration unveiled new work place regulations. Chertoff went out there, and the Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, had a press conference on border security and immigration administrative reforms. This is a huge crackdown and it's being focused on the employers. Of course, we talked about it all week. The employers are a little upset about this. "Food prices are going to go up, and that price will go up, and this price will go up." And that is what they always say to us. But do you know what's interesting about this to me? Go back into mid-June, not that long ago, mid-June, and in the dark of night, behind closed doors, a group of Republican and Democrat senators accompanied by representatives of the group La Raza crafted the Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007, called comprehensive immigration reform and control, whatever. They hoped to ram that bill through with no amendments. They hoped to ram it through with no hearings. McCain said we have to take the usual politics out of this, meaning debate. They were doing everything they could to sneak that bill by us. We all know what happened. It bombed. It went down in flames. Their attempt to sneak this thing by us blew up right in their faces. Republicans and Democrats alike.

Now all of a sudden we are getting serious on border security. We're getting serious on cracking down on the illegals, where they work. This is a 180, a 180, folks, from where our political leaders were back in June and July. Remember, they wanted to get it done before the July 4th recess. This may be bigger than 180. Back then they wanted to ram it through, and they heard you. What else can explain from the administration on down? Getting tough, cracking down. This appears to have some real substance to it. I'll tell you what it is, and it's actually something that you should feel pretty good about. It's election season. They knew they were trying to ram something down our throats that we had no stomach for and no desire for. If they could have, they would have; they tried it. It didn't work. They heard you, and now look what's happening going into the election, now that it's time to get your votes. Not just presidential, but the Senate and House elections too. Those are just over a year away now. They know.

When they want your votes they will listen to you. When they want your votes they'll do what they think it is you want done. But that time expires shortly after elections. That's why they have to be kept honest. But I think they got the message on this. I remember after the election or after the bill went down, the initial reaction of all these people was: "You're going to rue this day. You're going to rue this day. This is the biggest mistake." Now look it. If what they wanted to do was so great and so important and so good for the country, why have they caved on something that important to them? Why did they cave?

2007-08-10 12:08:05 · 16 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

I just cannot understand why anyone would think Abstinence-Only education actually works? It is unfathomable to me. If you tell a teenager not to do something, they're going to do it anyway. So... if teens are indefinitely going to have sex... why not tell them how to protect themselves rather than "Don't have sex. If you have sex, you will get pregnant and DIE!"

And don't tell me teens don't have sex. A select few abstain and hey, more power to them. But as a seventeen year old, 95% of my friends have had or are having sex with either significant others or some with ones that aren't so significant. It's just teenage life.

SO... my question is... to those who believe abstinence only education works... what is your reasoning?

2007-08-10 12:06:51 · 12 answers · asked by h4a5r 2

AT&T executives claim they would never interfere with web content.

On Sunday, when Pearl Jam was performing the song “Daughter” during the Lollapalooza festival in Chicago, the band broke into a version of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall.” Reworking the lyrics of the classic rock song, Vedder sang, “George Bush, leave this world alone” and “George Bush, find yourself another home.”

AT&T: “We have policies in place with respect to editing excessive profanity, but AT&T does not censor performances.”

And, of course, Vedder’s lyrics about Bush, which were not profane, did in fact get censored.

Pearl Jam released a statement on the censorship incident:

“This, of course, troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated control of the media. AT&T’s actions strike at the heart of the public’s concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears.."

2007-08-10 12:05:58 · 5 answers · asked by Richard V 6

Since the wages won't go up with the grocery prices, the middle class families will most likely be affected.

2007-08-10 12:00:38 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous

Have they finally tapped into a voting block that they can depend on?

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029/NEWS01/610290381/1006/NEWS01

2007-08-10 11:58:32 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

I really dont think or debate about abortion except when I see conservatives making such a big deal (especially on yahoo answers), so this question is directed at ProLifers: If someone is ProChoice does that make them a bad person?
There are Police Officers, Firefighters, Doctors, Therapists, etc who are ProChoice and that doesn't stop them from doing good things, so seriously does being ProChoice make you a bad person?

2007-08-10 11:55:52 · 11 answers · asked by baby.brown_eyes 2

A perfect example here (see the question and then my many corrections in the second answer):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AihTM_1YE3CSeKr3te00YlLsy6IX?qid=20070810150824AAFnb8c&show=7#profile-info-tG6yPT2Saa

Global warming deniers will also repeat the same disproven myths that it's due to the sun

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

volcanoes

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

"not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."

water vapor

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/5596_GlobalWarmingWaterVapor_onepager.pdf

soda pop

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvbtgI1im3pK.PoH1Qb02YkAAAAA?qid=20070730155849AA4KGBo
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApM1qGZBbmsOmSL6iQjBp40jzKIX?qid=20070530105716AActkJH

Why can't GW deniers do a little research before drawing an erroneous conclusion about such a critical subject?

2007-08-10 11:42:34 · 13 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

I think not. I have noticed that SOME people on here are either (1) well-meaning liberals who unknowingly support the socialist agenda (useful idiots), or (2) avowed socialists who deceitfully defend the socialist agenda and attack patriots like myself. I don't know which category each individual lib falls into, and I don't really care, but it is time to clear the air.
A review of facts supports the reality that Socialism is a very clear and present danger:

In the early 1900s, unrest in Europe brought thousands of socialists to America. Many held degrees in psychology, sociology and psychiatry (the behavioral sciences) and a number of them became university professors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_the_us
The socialists' first target was education, and they attacked with deceitful language. There were no badges or socialist labels; followers described themselves as "liberal," "progressive," and even "moderate." Words were the weapon of choice in this new war. By changing the meanings of words, socialists concealed their true purpose.
America's educational system began to decline with the introduction of Socialism. Lenin said: "Communism is socialism in a hurry." Socialism, therefore, is Communism by gradualism rather than by revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin


John Dewey, known as "the father of modern education," was an avowed socialist and the coauthor of the "Humanist Manifesto." The U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities discovered that he belonged to 15 Marxist front organizations.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey


Norman Thomas, a socialist and member of the American Civil Liberties Union, boldly told the world: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Thomas


Like so many frogs-in-the-pot, there are people in the USA who haven't yet noticed the heat rising incrementally. Those of us who see the light, are not going to stand idly by and be boiled


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog


Socialism must be destroyed, once and for all.

2007-08-10 11:29:42 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous

then why is Dick Cheney's daughter, Ronald Reagan's son, Alan Keyes daughter, Newt Gingrich's sister, and Terry Randal's (anti-abortion activit) adopted daughter... all gay?

You'd think with all those "family values" they would have nothing but straight children.

2007-08-10 11:25:39 · 16 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3

2007-08-10 11:25:12 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Considering that subprime mortgage lenders were not regulated where due diligence on extending credit to individuals was unchecked, who is to be blamed for this? when lenders found that the debt was of poor quality, they simply kept selling their portfolio to banks and hedge funds to throw the debt on their books and gain immediate profit.
Where was the SEC or Fed Resv to ensure compliance? for the past 5 years or so, the R.E.market has been booming.Were they not aware that the bulk of the industry was fueled by low interest rate offers 3/27 financing schemes? how stupid was the Government to sit back and not realize the growing risks? Now that the sh** has hit the fan are the NECONS ( SEC/Fed Resv) starting to probe into this issue. Typical typical ! now we are in a free fall. Do you think that the USD 38Bln dollar injection of the Fed reserve will solve this problem? its only a temporary solution to liquidity.

2007-08-10 11:12:52 · 11 answers · asked by 2012 4

None of them represent the GOP or the Dems.

2007-08-10 11:10:54 · 11 answers · asked by El Duderino 4

2007-08-10 11:04:49 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-10 10:44:35 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why do they need to be so childish and make everything a problem! We speak English here! What's the problem?

2007-08-10 10:36:37 · 43 answers · asked by Anonymous

Hillary clinton or Oprah?

2007-08-10 10:30:08 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

Or do you think it is bad for the party? I personally don't like it when, although rare, someone endorses the republican party. It angers me that just because they are in the spotlight that they think their opinion should matter more than anyone else's. The only exception to that is if they are directly involved in politics. Just wanted to get the other sides thoughts

2007-08-10 10:27:02 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

What is your opinion on it? as a democrat, i am all 4 it, but what do u think? is it worthless, r valuable 2 society?

2007-08-10 10:24:44 · 23 answers · asked by Die Sonne 3

The latest example of socialism advancing under the cover of environmentalism reaches us from, suprisingly enough, Texas, which will soon offer $3,500 vouchers to drivers of modest means to replace pre-1996 vehicles.

Older cars pollute more. According to global warming theology, each old car on the road could bring our planet a few fractions of a millisecond closer to apocalyptic doom.

Doom could be staved off a little longer if people drive environmentally ruinous yet politically correct hybrids, which is why you only get $3,000 if you replace your old car with a non-hybrid.

The Houston Comical reports that the "program is voluntary." That means you don't have to buy a new car, or take the free money if you do.

However, what is not noted is that it doesn't mean you the taxpayer don't have to provide the "free money", via redistribution come April 15.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5042241.html

2007-08-10 10:21:48 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

What difference does it make if we help them rid Al Qaeda?

They pose as much of a threat to Musharraf as to the U.S.!

2007-08-10 10:20:21 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-10 09:53:37 · 45 answers · asked by Anonymous

I've never been disrespectful in an answer to your questions yet you have me and other conservatives blocked. Do we frighten you? Do you not have an open mind? Can you convince us that you are right and we are wrong, or are you just interested in preaching the the left wing choir?

2007-08-10 09:52:45 · 11 answers · asked by madd texan 6

I'm trying to compose a list, seeing if I missed anyone.
Please include their country and if possible, relevance to current US foreign policy. Thanks!

2007-08-10 09:45:33 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-10 09:45:29 · 13 answers · asked by Liberal City 6

If ur democrat then pick someone from the Republican feild at this point

If ur repulican then pick someone from the Democratic feild at this point.

Plz no stupid answers you have to choose somebody!!!

2007-08-10 09:42:23 · 32 answers · asked by patsfan 3

Now that Iraq is good and messed up, if we were to leave.. and IF Iran and Saudi Arabia started squabbling over the remains the fear among many leaders is that it would cause a national energy crisis. Do you feel this is true.. Is Iraq finally messed up enough that we are stuck there for better or worse?

2007-08-10 09:41:02 · 20 answers · asked by pip 7

Bush and the GOP sure turned this country around fast!

2007-08-10 09:37:56 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

While inspecting historical temperature graphs, Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org, noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.
These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.
McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.

2007-08-10 09:35:24 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous