Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-08-2006, 10:04 AM   #1 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Limbaugh today..... anyone have any thoughts?

I had to listen to him today. I am interested in hearing what others have to think about what he had to say today.

I'm digesting what he is saying (the conservatives didn't lose, the people were duped into voting for Dems., the conservatives were too scared to run against Bush policies, etc.). Nowhere did he even say maybe, just maybe this election were the people telling the GOP and the politicians they had gone too far right.

America is a penduluum and for the past 12 years it swung right and now it topped out, it's on a downward leftward swing and that will go for maybe a decade then the swing will start back to the Right.

But give me your thoughts on Limbaugh's show today.

Be civil, I don't want attacks on Limbaugh as a person, or his show. I want a review of what he said and YOUR opinion on what he said.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:08 AM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Amaras's Avatar
 
Location: At my daughter's beck and call.
I'm sorry, but if I can't attack Limbaugh, then I have nothing to add!
Just kidding. Hey, he is trying to "rally the troops morale". The only positive
thing I can say about him is that he doesn't give up.
__________________
Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.
-Noam Chomsky
Love is a verb, not a noun.
-My Mom
The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later.
-Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928
Amaras is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:11 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
well, I can't speak on limbaugh because I didn't hear his show, but I heard Tom Delays stupid excuse by blaming the voters saying that their 'base' didn't stick with them by 'sending a message'.

I always thought that the politicians were supposed to do the peoples will, not have the voters support their off party views.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:14 AM   #4 (permalink)
NCB
Junkie
 
NCB's Avatar
 
Location: Tobacco Road
You would have a fair point if not for the fact that the Dems who were elected (Tester, Webb, Shuler, ect..) are conservative in nature, not liberal.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christine Stewart, Former Minister of the Environment of Canada
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
NCB is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:24 AM   #5 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Tester is a conservative?
Tester the pro-choice candidate? Tester the guy against a anti-gay marriage amendment? Tester who is a 'hollywood' farmer (organic)?

Shuller, and Webb are Conservative. Sure But don't look to Tester for a trend.

And hell, those are very few. MOST of the Dems elected are liberals. Just because a few are more moderate or mildly conservative, doesn't mean the movement as a whole wasn't significantly liberal.

You also have to look at who those 'conservative' Dems knocked off. It's still a net gain of liberalism.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:25 AM   #6 (permalink)
Psycho
 
MuadDib's Avatar
 
I really wish that I'd had the chance to listen in today. He's right and wrong all at once if what you say is correct. Then again, that is about par for Limbaugh. Republicans were to scared to run against Bush policies and that undoubtably would've saved at least some seats and thereby the Senate and maybe the House. The error is that this doesn't mean Americans were 'duped' nor does it mean that conservativism wasn't rejected. In fact, this was a rejection of conservative handling of government as of late. But that also doesn't mean that it was for liberalism. There is a middle ground, and though I wouldn't call these newly elected Dems conservative, as NCB has, I will say they are moderates with occassional dashes of conservative and liberal belief on a variety of issues. What matters here is that this election wasn't about issues or ideology so Limbaugh is partially correct in so much as he is saying that America is not rejecting conservative ideology, however they did reject this conservative Congress and its handing of government. To that effect, Pan is right. America is saying that Dems better represent the middle at this point in time, and if you are a political realist that means that the Repubs are too far right, but lets be clear that its not by much and not acrossed the board. Conservatism is far from dead. After six years America wasn't happy with government overall and wanted to see if what the other guy could do.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
MuadDib is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:27 AM   #7 (permalink)
NCB
Junkie
 
NCB's Avatar
 
Location: Tobacco Road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbelt
Tester is a conservative?
Tester the pro-choice candidate? Tester the guy against a anti-gay marriage amendment? Tester who is a 'hollywood' farmer (organic)?

Shuller, and Webb are Conservative. Sure But don't look to Tester for a trend.

And hell, those are very few. MOST of the Dems elected are liberals. Just because a few are more moderate or mildly conservative, doesn't mean the movement as a whole wasn't significantly liberal.

You also have to look at who those 'conservative' Dems knocked off. It's still a net gain of liberalism.
Yes, Tester is a conservative from the libertarian mold. Low taxes, pro-gun, strong on border security. Youre foolish to believe this was an election for liberalism. The homosexual redefinition of marriage referendums will tell you otherwise.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christine Stewart, Former Minister of the Environment of Canada
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
NCB is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:35 AM   #8 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCB
You would have a fair point if not for the fact that the Dems who were elected (Tester, Webb, Shuler, ect..) are conservative in nature, not liberal.
You lost how many House seats, Senate seats and Governor's mansions?

It's the swing. I think for Limbaugh to deny this or to look for other excuses will cost you the WH in '08.

Limbaugh is heavily underestimating what message people are sending.

I didn't say this was a "liberal" vote, I said it was a drive more towards center, the penduluum swung too far right and is being corrected and now swinging left.

Penduluums do not go from way right to way left over night. It swings sometimes slowly but builds momentum, it swings sometimes fast and slows down because of a change to weights, but it downswings and that is what it is now doing.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 11-08-2006 at 10:38 AM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:37 AM   #9 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Tester is for repealing the Bush Tax cuts taht are disproportionate to the wealthy and creating a new cut for the middle class. That's a liberal stance.

Tester is not Northeast socially liberal. But for the midwest he is right up there. It's an entire different dynamic, but conservative, this man is not.

I understand though. You need to think this to make yourselves feel better.

And, libertarian is not conservative. Libertarian is libertarian.
Though, it's entymological route is liberal.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:41 AM   #10 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
I don't get to listen to limbaugh at work.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:44 AM   #11 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
I don't get to listen to limbaugh at work.
Tell ya what Stevo, you figure out something to get me for Christmas (something heartfelt) and I will subscribe you to Rush 24/7 for a year.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:44 AM   #12 (permalink)
Psycho
 
MuadDib's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
You lost how many House seats, Senate seats and Governor's mansions?

It's the swing. I think for Limbaugh to deny this or to look for other excuses will cost you the WH in '08.

Limbaugh is heavily underestimating what message people are sending.
I'm a solid Dem, but I think you're overstating the message as well. Clearly Limbaugh is underestimating the message. That's his job and he's paid very well to do it. What's important is that Democrats like us don't get carried away in the "Oh who won that election? Oh yeah it was acrossed the board!" kind of attitude. If we get carried away with this then we're going to end up sounding like Bush crying mandate in 2000. The American people have not given the liberals a mandate here, they have given the Democratic Party the opportunity to show them what we've got. We have a change to act moderately and responsibly where the American people felt that the Republican Party at large could/would not. If we, as Democrats, start talking like this 'landslide' had more to do with us then it did with them we will seriously jeopardize our potential in '08 and, worse, lose a brilliant opportunity to really prove ourselves as the party of the middle class, the party of economic responsibility, and the party of responsible government. Those are things we have been touting since Clinton, now isn't that time to run with our win, but buckle down for some serious work. Let's stop talking about liberalism and conservatism and instead thank the American people for giving us the chance to prove ourselves then lets do it.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
MuadDib is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:51 AM   #13 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
I'm a solid Dem, but I think you're overstating the message as well. Clearly Limbaugh is underestimating the message. That's his job and he's paid very well to do it. What's important is that Democrats like us don't get carried away in the "Oh who won that election? Oh yeah it was acrossed the board!" kind of attitude. If we get carried away with this then we're going to end up sounding like Bush crying mandate in 2000. The American people have not given the liberals a mandate here, they have given the Democratic Party the opportunity to show them what we've got. We have a change to act moderately and responsibly where the American people felt that the Republican Party at large could/would not. If we, as Democrats, start talking like this 'landslide' had more to do with us then it did with them we will seriously jeopardize our potential in '08 and, worse, lose a brilliant opportunity to really prove ourselves as the party of the middle class, the party of economic responsibility, and the party of responsible government. Those are things we have been touting since Clinton, now isn't that time to run with our win, but buckle down for some serious work. Let's stop talking about liberalism and conservatism and instead thank the American people for giving us the chance to prove ourselves then lets do it.

Don't get me wrong, this is in no way to say that we are going to mandate with our agenda. It's just a sign that the penduluum is swinging left... in order to keep that momentum naturally, the Left needs to move the speed of the people (penduluum), when you try to speed up the penduluum or you add too much too soon, you'll find you scare the people and the natural progression will be stalled, halted or reversed.

No you can not be over confident..... you need to look at what is being said, pay attention to what people are truly saying and allow the penduluum it's natural progression.... which right now is towards the left.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:58 AM   #14 (permalink)
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
 
Bill O'Rights's Avatar
 
Location: In the dust of the archives
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbelt
And, libertarian is not conservative. Libertarian is libertarian.
Though, it's entymological route is liberal.
Try...liber...ty.
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.
Bill O'Rights is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 11:03 AM   #15 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Most of the Dems who won are not liberal, in the old Dem sense. They are more like the DLC Dems.., centrist and pragmatic, and not so rigidly ideological.

Many of the Repubs who lost were the moderate Repubs, particularly in NY, PA, NH, CT, OH....leaving the Repubs more conservative as a party.

For me, that portents a good future for the Dems, with more and more Indepedents, who ultimately control the balance of power between the two parties, leaning to the Dems.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 11:16 AM   #16 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
Try...liber...ty.
Yeah, sorry, you're right. Both Liberal and Libertarian derive from the latin word for free.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 11:24 AM   #17 (permalink)
Psycho
 
MuadDib's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Don't get me wrong, this is in no way to say that we are going to mandate with our agenda. It's just a sign that the penduluum is swinging left... in order to keep that momentum naturally, the Left needs to move the speed of the people (penduluum), when you try to speed up the penduluum or you add too much too soon, you'll find you scare the people and the natural progression will be stalled, halted or reversed.

No you can not be over confident..... you need to look at what is being said, pay attention to what people are truly saying and allow the penduluum it's natural progression.... which right now is towards the left.
I think we essentially agree, but I am not ready to say it's a move to the left. All I'll say is that it's a move to the center. Is this symantics? Maybe. But to me it's a very important distinction. A move to the center means we feel the Dems best represent the center now and its not a left vs right issue.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
MuadDib is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 11:25 AM   #18 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
I think we essentially agree, but I am not ready to say it's a move to the left. All I'll say is that it's a move to the center. Is this symantics? Maybe. But to me it's a very important distinction. A move to the center means we feel the Dems best represent the center now and its not a left vs right issue.
I whole heartedly agree, it is a definitive move toward center not left.

But a caller just now stated what my point is. That the Dems went center to get the votes, then the center moves left....

Limbaugh says he see warning signs but that the people are conservative and throws out a poll that people believe the GOP is big government... Limbaugh's excuse 6 years, new entitlement, not running the government on true conservativism.... etc.

But he concedes that McCain is going to run as "the Conservative" and McCain is a moderate.... so yes, even Limbaugh sees that the penduluum is swinging.

He is all about "Bush saving his approval ratings getting them up and going back to Crawford with a 65 approval rating".

This will definately be a very interesting 2 years. My true hope is that there is less confrontation, more compromise and that the parties listen to the people and give the people what they want without positioning for power.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 11-08-2006 at 11:31 AM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 11:30 AM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
I heard him say "keep living your life" don't change as a rsult of who won. I heard him be accepting of the Republican defeat. He was not saying anyone stole the election, etc, etc.
I also think he realizes that the Democrats will get some of the things they want. I heard him say that the media may have a different tone about the outlook of our nation. I think we are seeing that already.

P.S. I heard Rangle, from NY, say that the Bush taxs cuts are up for discussion, meaning they may be kept under the right "conditions", I bet the Democratic base won't like that.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 11:40 AM   #20 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I heard him say "keep living your life" don't change as a rsult of who won. I heard him be accepting of the Republican defeat. He was not saying anyone stole the election, etc, etc.
I also think he realizes that the Democrats will get some of the things they want. I heard him say that the media may have a different tone about the outlook of our nation. I think we are seeing that already.

P.S. I heard Rangle, from NY, say that the Bush taxs cuts are up for discussion, meaning they may be kept under the right "conditions", I bet the Democratic base won't like that.
Perhaps, Rangle is speaking and planning to use them as a bargaining chip for compromise.

We have the oppurtunity to have true compromise and doing what's best for the country, NOT the party's best interest.... Let's hope we see it.

I'm more optimistic and believing that we are finally on the right track, but it's up to the parties (BOTH OF THEM) to do what is best for the people, we can't have 1 out for just themselves... because the penduluum will swing the opposite way the party that is power hungry wants. IE the Dems get too liberal and make unreasonable demands and refuse to compromise will shift voters right again. The GOP is in the same boat.

Limbaugh is trying hard (and probably will) to downplay compromise that it is all now a popularity contest and the "conservatives" will sell out to be popular.

Perhaps, Rush, but again, I don't think so, I think it's the natural progression of the nation. And if you preach compromise as not what America truly wants, and that hate speak isn't going to sell as well now.... then I believe you won't last the next 2 years.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 11-08-2006 at 11:44 AM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 11:46 AM   #21 (permalink)
Psycho
 
MuadDib's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I whole heartedly agree, it is a definitive move toward center not left.

But a caller just now stated what my point is. That the Dems went center to get the votes, then the center moves left....

Limbaugh says he see warning signs but that the people are conservative and throws out a poll that people believe the GOP is big government... Limbaugh's excuse 6 years, new entitlement, not running the government on true conservativism.... etc.

But he concedes that McCain is going to run as "the Conservative" and McCain is a moderate.... so yes, even Limbaugh sees that the penduluum is swinging.

He is all about "Bush saving his approval ratings getting them up and going back to Crawford with a 65 approval rating".

This will definately be a very interesting 2 years. My true hope is that there is less confrontation, more compromise and that the parties listen to the people and give the people what they want without positioning for power.
Fair enough, as the one actually listen to Limbaugh here I have to defer to you on this one.

I think Limbaugh is mincing words the same way we are in our discussion of left and center. I am hoping this won't become the Repub party-line though. I mean, as a Democrat if that's how they want to play it then fine, we'll be happy campers in '08. But there's a reason Limbaugh is a conservative radio icon and not a politician; because he lives in his own little world and it makes some people happy to hear it. He's just reassuring his listeners and that's all fine and well, but if they take it to heart then they'll pay in 2 years.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
MuadDib is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 11:52 AM   #22 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I whole heartedly agree, it is a definitive move toward center not left.
Okay, but I don't see the distinction. The center is left of where we've been. A move toward the center is also a move toward the left. Nobody's claiming that today's election result jump-shifts us into Sweden territory, but it's certainly a liberalizing result, to coin a phrase.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 12:03 PM   #23 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Okay, but I don't see the distinction. The center is left of where we've been. A move toward the center is also a move toward the left. Nobody's claiming that today's election result jump-shifts us into Sweden territory, but it's certainly a liberalizing result, to coin a phrase.
I agree it is a move to the left no matter how you look at it and the natural progression is to the left but how far left and how fast left we move needs to be watched. We move too fast and or to far left it's over. And the Right will capitalize on it and take the penduluum farther right next time.

Look at it as liberalizing but not a mandate for liberalism.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 02:14 PM   #24 (permalink)
Psycho
 
MuadDib's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Okay, but I don't see the distinction. The center is left of where we've been. A move toward the center is also a move toward the left. Nobody's claiming that today's election result jump-shifts us into Sweden territory, but it's certainly a liberalizing result, to coin a phrase.
You know what? You're right. I guess my issue here (I'm not sure if I discussed it here or in another thread; sorry I've been extremely active over the last 24 hours) is that I am not comfortable with the framing of the discussion. Everyone out there claiming left, or even liberal, is correct. My caveat is that this isn't the way we ought to be framing this discussion. The assumption behind this kind of rhetoric is that democrat=left. Incorrect? No. But not entirely correct either. My fear is that if this election gets characterized as a leftward movement and not a responsiveness/accountability/responsible movement then we lose the votes that gave us our win. Can we <b>please</b> focus on right; on being the party that heals, the party that fixes, the party that rights the wrongs and not bog ourselves down in the politics as usual nonsense that lost us the support of this country in the first place and, in turn, lost the Republicans the support of this country yesterday. Let us rise above and say that Democrat is not defined by your swing on a constructed political contiunuum, but that Democrat is instead defined by good, clean, and responsible government.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
MuadDib is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 07:42 PM   #25 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Pan, is this the audio of Rush's program today?

Limbaugh

He is saying that he feels liberated to no longer need to support those that weren't worthy of his support. Whoa.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 07:50 PM   #26 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
He is saying that he feels liberated to no longer need to support those that weren't worthy of his support. Whoa.
Yeah, I saw that on Olberman today.

Part of me wants to be righteously indignant he's now admitting that what he said during the campaign was full of crap. Bush said the same sort of thing today (I obviously had to lie you about Rumsfeld before the election, the Democrats are suddenly also committed to the safety of America, I know what happens when the campaign is over and governing begins, etc). At the same time, it's so obvious, it's almost not worth getting in a twist about.

How nice would it be if you could actually believe something a politician said before the election is over?
ratbastid is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 11:31 PM   #27 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Pan, is this the audio of Rush's program today?

Limbaugh

He is saying that he feels liberated to no longer need to support those that weren't worthy of his support. Whoa.
I think out of all this what we will see is those Right Winged talking heads who didn't truly believe in Bush and rode Limbaugh's coattails and said what they thought was the populist view, change their tunes fast.

People like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, most of Fox News and so on, will all of a sudden not be so Right. They may not go totally Centrist but their stances will soften, their way of talking will lighten up and the change will be very noticeable.

Those are the people that did what they did for the money. And Bill O'Reilly will be back on "A Current Affair" hawking gossip.

Limbaugh will be the only one that stays true to his cause and will sell. But even he will be softer and easier to take, kind of like how he was back in the very early 90's before he became such a hate monger.

Anne Coulter..... well she's just crazy and she'll end up doing walk ons in sitcoms paroding herself because she'll need the money.

Drudge, will be Drudge, claiming he knows more and the true pulse of America but his show will lose ratings fast.

From Rush's show and just listening to other shows.... I think maybe we are coming out of the politics of hate era.

How long it will last and if it is just a placid response for the time being to the election, we shall see.

I do however, believe that America wants the hate gone and politicians that just fix the problems regardless of party, but I also believe the people have stated the country has gone too far right and needs to come back now.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 05:38 AM   #28 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I'm digesting what he is saying (the conservatives didn't lose, the people were duped into voting for Dems.,
Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.

Got that outa the way

Rush is wrong, as usual. That's no surprise. The surprise is that Bush was right yesterday. The Dems didn't win, the republicans lost. You're correct in your analysis Pan. Look at how the gay marriage bans went and (in the states that had them) the death penalty votes. Straight republican sentiments are what carried the day. The people didn't vote for the democrats because they like left-wing views. They voted for the democrats because they're tired of the scandal and corruption the republicans have (again) brought to the political landscape. And they voted for the dems because, while they're not left wing, they're not right wing either. Most people are solidly in the middle, and the republicans in power have lately been so far out on the right that they're off the wing entirely.


Quote:
America is a penduluum and for the past 12 years it swung right and now it topped out, it's on a downward leftward swing and that will go for maybe a decade then the swing will start back to the Right.
Here you may be wrong. The dems have 2 years to show the public that they can govern and govern well. If they do good work in these 2 years and help the country heal and grow, then they'll stay on the swing. If they don't, then they don't deserve the power any more than the republicans do.



In the end, what REALLY lost this election for the republicans was Rumsfeld. I'm convinced that if Bush had fired the hawkish SOB 2 weeks ago the dems wouldn't have made nearly as many gains as they did. I'm betting a lot of republicans are PISSED after yesterday's firing, too late to mean anything for their party.
shakran is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 05:53 AM   #29 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Pan, is this the audio of Rush's program today?

Limbaugh

He is saying that he feels liberated to no longer need to support those that weren't worthy of his support. Whoa.
For me, this just supports my theory that those who are making big bucks off the right/left conflict are all talking out of one side of their mouth - at least on occasion. Their job is theater not commentary.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 06:07 AM   #30 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
shakran echoes what i have been seeing from the right's talking and writing machines---conservatism is ok, the bush administration lost.

tactically, this is the move one had to expect from there.
the logic itself is not yet a positioning, it is a separation that will enable positioning.
so it is not yet clear which way conservativeland will move in response to these elections, the position from which the process of differentiation is going to restart.


it seems logical, based on this move, that you would see the conservative apparatus position itself rightward.
i have seen polls (in this mornings nytimes for example) indicate that the republicans got about 70% of the white evangelical vote, and lost about 30% so shoring up the far right base would make some sense.
but the problem for the conservative apparatus is the center, not the right.

if the machine shifts right, then the assumption would have to be that moderates are like a lumpen-factor that shifts whichever way the political winds blow.
so the interpretation of the elections would be: tend to the extreme right base, and hope that the way in which iraq continues to devolve (for example) can be pinned on the democrats in such a way as to reverse the winds that blow the moderates around.

insofar as iraq is concerned, this tactic would presuppose that the far right base is wholly deluded about what is happening in iraq such that problems can emerge now and be pinned on attempts to adjust the american position there. which is kinda crazy, but who knows.

thing is that nobody has much room to manoever within this new set-up. the bush administration is still there. power is split in the senate. the house looks like a weak counter to the administration, its inverse, but weaker.
the iraq disaster is still there as well, to be worked out in a context that provides a very narrow margin for manoever.
so i am not optimistic.

but it is the tightness of the political game that makes me think that the conservative apparatus will shift rightward, simply because by doing that the ideology could till foreground differences in political position as differences of identity ans differences in informational context as different camps in the war against Evil etc.

while i hope that the conservative machine fucks up and finds itself sliding into a richly deserved oblivion, it makes little sense to expect it. these are not stupid people. never underestimate the adversary. never overestimate the adversary. wait and see what the move is.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 06:10 AM   #31 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
People like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, most of Fox News and so on, will all of a sudden not be so Right. They may not go totally Centrist but their stances will soften, their way of talking will lighten up and the change will be very noticeable.
... Which will illustrate the falsehood of their assertion that Fox is news and not propaganda.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 02:04 PM   #32 (permalink)
Upright
 
__________________
"According to the map we've only gone four inches" -Dumb and Dumber
Kali is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 07:17 PM   #33 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I'm digesting what he is saying (the conservatives didn't lose, the people were duped into voting for Dems., the conservatives were too scared to run against Bush policies, etc.). Nowhere did he even say maybe, just maybe this election were the people telling the GOP and the politicians they had gone too far right.
Personally, I think it was the conservative base telling their elected officials that they had gone too far left.

So many Republicans had been spending like drunken sailors that their constituents were disgusted with them. I'm not downplaying Iraq, scandals, and the rest; I'm just adding a different slant.
__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 08:35 PM   #34 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
So many Republicans had been spending like drunken sailors that their constituents were disgusted with them. I'm not downplaying Iraq, scandals, and the rest; I'm just adding a different slant.

Back to poly-sci 101 for you. Out of control spending is not a party issue. Clinton was infinitely more fiscally responsible than either of the Bush's or Reagan. The republicans have been fooling the public for decades now claiming to be fiscal conservatives, and "proving" it by cancelling humanitarian programs left and right. That saves a lot of money, but they waste it anyway by pumping it straight into the military whether its needed or not.
shakran is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 09:00 PM   #35 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
Personally, I think it was the conservative base telling their elected officials that they had gone too far left.

So many Republicans had been spending like drunken sailors that their constituents were disgusted with them. I'm not downplaying Iraq, scandals, and the rest; I'm just adding a different slant.
hmmm....I'm kinda surprised that I have to post the following, again....this denial of the details from marv, reminds me of the "there were too WMD and active WMD programs found by US weapons inspectors in Iraq"....

......If you decide to vote in the poll, please post a justification for the poll choice that you select. How do republicans jusitfy opinions that the democrats are the "party of big spenders"?

How do libertarians justify opinions that there is no clear difference between the two major parties, and that it is better to consistently vote for libertarian candidates, even if the result, as it clearly was in 2000, and in 2004, is that the party with the dramatically poorer record of budget management and growth containment of the government, retains power? How long do libertarians think that it will take, even if they somehow manage to elect a libertarian POTUS, and a one house congressional majority, to reverse the effect on the dramatic increase in US treasury debt, and in the growth of the federal government, that are the fallout from the "spoiler" effect of their 2000 and 2004 vote, against democrats?


I made the argument in the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2143414#post2143414"><b>"1st Phone Call"</b></a> thread, that one major party's elected officials, during times in the past three decades when they held the office of the US presidency, and at least one house of the congress, achieved dramatically superior control of federal debt accumulation and growth of federal employment, than the other party, during the times that it held power.....

My argument was met with this response:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...29#post2143829
Quote:
Originally Posted by seretogis
....Wow. In seven years the federal debt increases (the amount that we pile on the debt) was lowered, and that is an accomplishment? Progress, perhaps, but not what we should be expecting from seven-plus years. <b>Add to this the gross over-spending endorsed by both parties involved since 2000 and any temporary gain is negated completely.</b>



Since when has our government employed the use of budget, taxation, and spending management? (Before you copy/paste, the previous was tongue-in-cheek.) You are missing the point completely, imo, that being that the government has overstepped its bounds and is no longer serving its primary need of defending its citizens from foreign invaders and criminals but is instead injecting itself into nearly every facet of our daily lives. Democrats AND Republicans encourage this, either "for our own good" or to embolden or justify the "American Way™." Both parties are ideologically antagonistic to the very principles this country was founded on, particularly individual rights, and have been for decades.

As for the "disaster" of leaving Republicans in office for two more years rather than voting Democrats into their place, that is laughable. I myself am prepared for a struggle of 20+ years to restore this country to what it should be -- a nation concerned with the safety and success of its free citizens, not emptying its pockets to foreign dictatorships or treating its people like cattle while granting political favors which lead those cattle to a slaughterhouse. The problem with this country goes far beyond the range of the moment, far beyond the last five to seven years or the next two years. Step back and take a look at what we have become and how terribly we have allowed our individual rights to be violated for the sake of convenience or a false sense of security.
seretogis.... since all lobbyist firms, beginning in 2001, had to hire only republicans, and dismiss democrats on their staffs, and since....beginning in 2001, all budgets were drawn up solely via the participation, in the house, of the republican caucas, after submission of a budget proposal by the republican POTUS, and with no democrat chairing and house committee, how do you support your claim:
Quote:
Add to this the gross over-spending endorsed by both parties involved since 2000 and any temporary gain is negated completely.
....and, while you wait for your libertarian third party to grow large enough to eclipse one of the other two parties, why do you concede to the folowing mismanagement? Haven't the debt accumulation and the federal government growth of the past six, years, set your libertarian agenda signifigantly farther back, than if you had managed to gain control of the government in 2001, or in 2005? Aren't many of the fiscal options for reversing the tide. gone, now that the deficit grows by more than $550 billion annually, compared to just $18 billion in 2000, and just $32 billion, in 2001, and now that the total treasury debt is $8500 billion, instead of 2001's $5764 billion?

Why do you favor leaving the control of the budget in the hands of a party that has no plan to reduce additional $500 billion deficits, or to end "wars of choice"? Isn't it much harder now, even if you were to gain power, to achieve swift and signifigant reversal of the current course, than if you did not serve as "spoilers" in the 2000 and 2004 elections? Why do you not consider voting "defensively" for democrats, especially if your goal is smaller government and dramatically less spending? Won't the debt service burden...hundreds of billions of addtional budget dollars spent on annual interest payments resulting from nearly $3,000 billion in recent new debt, hamper your plan to swiftly implement "reforms" on some (possibly distant), future date?

Quote:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...34/ai_96644869
All the presidents' employees - Data - federal employment growth or shrinkage by president - Brief Article
Reason, Feb, 2003 by Brian Doherty

It's often said there isn't a dime's worth of difference between today's two major political parties. But Democrats and Republicans still try to cast themselves as cats and dogs. For example, Republicans label their adversary the party of big government, while Democrats count the GOP as a tool of the military-industrial complex.

Does the rhetoric reflect reality? When considering statistics about civilian employment by the federal government, the answer is clearly no. During the last 40 years, Democratic administrations added to the federal government's payroll 31,000 civilian defense employees (Defense Department employees who aren't soldiers), and 49,000 nondefense employees--some growth in both categories. <b>But Republican administrations have on balance subtracted 426,000 civilian defense jobs--and added 320,000 nondefense employees. That adds up to bureaucratic bloat more than six times that of the Democrats. The biggest slasher of federal nondefense payrolls was Bill Clinton.</b>

Government Employees Added or (Subtracted)

Civilian Defense Non-Defense

Kennedy (12,000) 73,000
Johnson 312,000 105,000
Nixon/Ford (333,000) 213,000
Carter (25,000) (14,000)
Reagan 91,000 3,000
George H.W. Bush (184,000) 104,000
Clinton (244,000) (115,000)

Source: Budget for Fiscal Year 2003 Historical Table 17.1, "Total
Executive Branch Civilian Employees: 1940-2001"

COPYRIGHT 2003 Reason Foundation
Quote:
<b>1981....A 12 year period of Republican Control Begins...</b>
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm091981.pdf
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 1981
(Amount in millions of dollars)

Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding.............................................. $997,855
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt............................................ 607
Unamortized Discount .............................................. (*)
Federal Financing Bank..............................................
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 997,248
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies.............................. 435
Total Debt Subject to limit.......................................... 998,818
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................ 999,800
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit...................................... 982


ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm091989.pdf
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 1989
(Amount in millions of dollars)

Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding.............................................. $2,857,431
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt............................................ 597
Unamortized Discount .............................................. 12,360
Federal Financing Bank.............................................. 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 2,829,474
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies.............................. 296
Total Debt Subject to limit.......................................... 2,829,770
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................ 2,870,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit...................................... 40,230


ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm091993.pdf
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
(Amount in millions of dollars)

Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding.............................................. $4,411,489
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt............................................ 592
Unamortized Discount .............................................. 80,539
Federal Financing Bank.............................................. 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 4,315,358
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies.............................. 213
Total Debt Subject to limit.......................................... 4,315,471
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................ 4,900,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit...................................... 584,429

<b>1993, A 12 Year period of Republican Control Ends, an 8 Year Period of Democratic control, Begins:</b>

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdmss09.htm
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
(Amount in millions of dollars)

Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding.............................................. $5,413,146
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt............................................ 536
Unamortized Discount .............................................. 70,054
Federal Financing Bank.............................................. 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 5,327,556
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies.............................. 68
Total Debt Subject to limit.......................................... 5,327,624
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................ 5,950,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit...................................... 622,376

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds091999.htm
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, <b>SEPTEMBER 30, 1999</b>
(Amount in millions of dollars)
Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding......................................... <b>$5,656,271</b>
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt.................................... 529
Unamortized Discount ......................................... 73,154
Federal Financing Bank......................................... 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 5,567,588
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies............ 106
Total Debt Subject to limit...................................... 5,567,694
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................... 5,950,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit ................................ 382,306

<b>2000: Budget Data indicates that, after 7 budget years, Democratic budget oversight and tax policy yields a cessation of treasury debt accumulation, the first time that this has occurred in 25 years:</b>
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds092000.htm
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, <b>SEPTEMBER 30, 2000</b>
(Amount in millions of dollars)
Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding............................... <b>$5,674,178</b>
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt.................................... 526
Unamortized Discount ......................................... 67,246
Federal Financing Bank......................................... 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit.......................... 5,591,407
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies............ 218
Total Debt Subject to limit...................................... 5,591,625
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................... 5,950,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit ................................ 358,375
<b>2002 Budget, ending on Sept. 30, 2002, marks end of first year of new period of Republican control of federal government......<>
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm092006.prn
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 2006

Debt Subject to Limit: 19
Public Debt Outstanding............................................ 8,506,974
Less Amounts Not Subject to Limit:
Other Debt Not Subject to Limit...................................... 506
Unamortized Discount 3............................................ 72,286
Federal Financing Bank 1 ..................................... 14,000
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit................................. 8,420,183
Other Debt Subject to Limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government Agencies 4 ......................... 96
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit.................................. 8,420,278
Statutory Debt Limit 5............................................. 8,965,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit.........................................544,722
COMPILED AND PUBLISHED BY
THE BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
www.publicdebt.treas.gov

<b>2006: Budget Data indicates that, after 5 budget years, Republican budget oversight and tax policy yields a resumption of treasury debt accumulation, at a record annual pace, to a record level.... as total US treasury Debt increases by more than $2,800 billion, an increase greater than 50 percent, compared to the Sept. 30, 2001 debt total of $5706 billion.</b>
host is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 10:10 PM   #36 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
Personally, I think it was the conservative base telling their elected officials that they had gone too far left.

So many Republicans had been spending like drunken sailors that their constituents were disgusted with them. I'm not downplaying Iraq, scandals, and the rest; I'm just adding a different slant.
Unlike my fellow Dem brothers Shakran and Host, I think you raise an interesting point.

I think there is a certain conservative base that felt like you and did send a message. I think that was one thing Rush was trying to say, and did but in a round about way.

Do I think that it was the deciding factor? No, I think it did cost a few seats and perhaps the Senate, but I don't think it truly had much affect on the House as a whole.

The problem with having all the power, you have to sell your soul to keep it, and that's what the GOP did. And in doing so, they lost the more truly conservative base they needed.

Overall, I truly believe it was because the populace saw the country going too far right. The nation is, I believe socially liberal (in areas like education, healthcare, social services) but wanting accountability and fiscal responsibility in government. During Clinton, that was what we had and we boomed. During Bush, we didn't we had gluttony in the wrong areas.

The Dems. in the past (and hopefully they have learned a lesson) were gluttons the other direction, welfare, unemployment, pushing very bad agendas such as Affirmative Action, etc.. And I believe if the Dems. can control the radicals and keep the bureaucracies from choking programs (bureaucracy = excessive amounts of needless spending...), we'll see true financial growth across the board.

Time will tell.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 07:31 AM   #37 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Disgruntled conservatives may have been responsible for a few Repub losses, but IMO, it was the Indepdendent voters who made the difference in most races, as they haved in every recent election. Some exit polls had the Independents voting 2-1 for Dems.

If, as a result of the election, the Repubs go back to the base that they "abandoned", as their conservative constituents want (ie Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Richard Vigurie, James Dobson, etc), the Dems will surely benefit in 2008 with these Indepdendent voters.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 07:41 AM   #38 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
I now understand why Air America is doing so poorly, all you guys are listening to Rush.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 08:08 AM   #39 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
I think the election results can be attributed to all of the aforementioned factors. Which can all be summed up by the umbrella factor of CHANGE. I mean, really, there were a variety of issues to choose from that motivated great enough blocs of voters to vote for "the other guys." Whether your concern is the war, the economy or the scary "morality brigade" and the dozens of other sub-issues associated with them. There was no shortage of reasons not to vote republican in this election.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
 

Tags
limbaugh, thoughts, today

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:16 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360