Thank you. I've been listening to a lot of Rush Limbaugh, and taking notes. Liberals will never be as good at hurling insults as the conservative squawk jocks, but we're getting better.

@Taoist -

Last night, I was switching back and forth between O'Reilly and Schultz, and let me tell you, there were far more insults being leveled by Schultz than O'Reilly. When making a comparison, it would help if you actually compared the opposing viewpoints instead of merely focussing on one side.

Try again.

Well, Hoffa, I'm mostly a radio guy, so I switch between the demagogues on WISN and the supposedly "liberal" (just ask Rush) NPR and WPR. And in the comparison, your side comes away looking like utter fools.

Try again!

You're comparing a political pundit (cheerleader) to NPR and WPR? How does the old saying go about apples and oranges again?

Why not compare a pundit with an actual pundit? Ever listen to Schultz's radio show? It's a nonstop barrage of insults that would put Limbaugh to shame in a heartbeat!

Let's at least be fair here and compare apples to apples, shall we?

I think it's a perfectly apt comparison. If you consider the reasons for listening (news and news analysis, presumably), and consider the sizes of the respective audiences, then Rush Limbaugh and Steve Inskeep are in the same business. If you consider further that Rush represents himself as someone who provides "the truth" (implying that the "liberal media" is lying), and that many conservatives will believe Limbaugh over the generic NPR reporter, then the distinction you're insisting on holds even less water. The claim of being an "entertainer" (as Glenn Beck, Limaugh et. al. are fond of making) is merely a fig leaf. The fact is, a lot of Republican primary voters buy into the "liberal media conspiracy" garbage that these demagogues peddle. For merely being "entertainers," they sure are doing a lot of harm.

Try Agaaaaaaaaain!

@Taoist -

Your argument is illogical and faulty because of the assumptions you make and your ignoring of the true liberal radio pundits and their personal conduct. If you can't see that, then there's no sense in continuing this conservation further.

"... the problem with defining money as "speech," is that a very few people have way, WAY more "speech" than the rest of us."

Are you now defining freedom of speech as equal access to mass communication / media venues? Interesting premise, but I'm not so sure that such was ever intended under the 1st Amendment. You certainly weren't complaining about it when Obama outspent McCain by almost 3:1, were you? Not to mention that even if Adelson has billions of dollars at his disposal, he's still just one man and only entitled to one vote, the same as someone who's penniless.

Try again!

Nope, your points are weak. If I'm ignoring the "true liberal radio pundits" it's because everyone else does. Liberal "shock jocks" don't last, and they can't draw the kind of audience that Rush and his ilk do, because, well, liberals are smarter than that. Liberals understand what "fair and balanced" actually means. Face it - right wing radio is an alternate universe, and way too many conservatives get sucked into it. Way, way more people than ever listen to "true liberal shock jocks."

As to "money" and "speech" - It's not about media access, it's about keeping a zombie / astroturf campaign alive in order to spoil the race. I'm saying that a campaign like Gingrich's, with no real base of support, would have long since evaporated without the Roberts "Supremely Reckless" Court opening the floodgates to unlimited spending by billionaires. As it is, you have one super-rich man propping up a candidate to siphon votes away from Santorum, and leave Romney standing.

The conservative movement has been "punked" big time, and yet none of you have the integrity to step back and say "woah, wait a minute... maybe giving the super-rich unlimited spending power in our electoral process isn't such a good idea after all..." You all are being such compliant saps, which is just what the super-rich want.

And now... Trrrrrrrrry-aiee-aiee-aiee-aiee Agaaaaaaain!!!

@Taoist -

Using your 'logic,' I guess you'd jump off a cliff to your death so long as everyone else was doing it!

Way to think for yourself there big guy!

What? I think you meant to post that somewhere else, because it has no connection at all to what I said. In fact, it seems like you're the one who insists on trying to justify the wretchedness of right-wing demagoguery by insisting that "the left does it too." It's called false equivalence, FYI. You may not be familiar with the term, but you know the tactic intimately.

@Randy1949 -

"Any man (or woman) who can't see the necessary separation between his private religious dogma and public policy isn't fit to hold public office."

As Rick has said time and again, just because he discusses his religious values doesn't mean that he wants there to be a federal law implementing them.

How often does Obama talk about basketball? Does that mean that Obama wants a federal law mandating that we all play basketball at least 1 hour a day or face a fine?

Come on now!

Has not Rick Santorum criticized JFK for insisting he wouldn't take his marching orders from the Pope? In fact, hasn't Rick Santorum said he would sign legislation that allowed states to overturn Griswold?

"Rick Santorum reiterated his belief that states should have the right to outlaw contraception during an interview with ABC News yesterday, saying, “The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.” "
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/03/396516/santorum-states-should-have-the-right-to-outlaw-birth-control/

And that means for everybody, JRH -- married people too. The idea of him appointing Supreme Court justices and signing legislation sent to him by a conservative dominated Congress scares the dickens out of me.

@Randy1949 -

As far as state's rights go, he is correct under a traditional constructionist interpretation of the federal Constitution. And what states would honestly enact such legislation? While there may be attempts at such, it's not likely to ever happen. So how exactly is this an example of Rick imposing his religious beliefs on anyone?

@Bren -

How in the hell is such an incident at all indicative of non-conservative values and what qualifies you as being the expert on what qualifies as conservative "respect" for a dead family member?

Now you're just pumping irrelevant sensationalized stories ala morninmist to make a case for your pro-Soros leanings.

Utterly distasteful and absolutely pathetic! I expected better from you.

Bren, it's weird that you should use that example; I always thought that that was one of the more humanizing Santorum anecdotes out there. Not what I would necessarily have done, but I can understand needing some closure after that experience. If my wife miscarried late in her term, I think I'd want to hold the baby, and I can understand wanting the whole family to participate in that.

None of that is to say that he wouldn't be a terrible President, of course.

Mr. Hoffa, I spent many formative years growing up in a conservative household. That is my qualification. It's not a sensationlized story, it's what happened. What are my pro-Soros leanings, may I ask? International poverty relief, human rights, etc., yes, I'm guilty.

I'm not sure if I found Santorum's actions as distasteful and pathetic as you; I certainly found the lack of understanding how it might affect his children disturbing. There are more appropriate ways for a matter such as this to be handled when there are small children involved.

Taoist, the incident suggested to me an inability to make a sound judgment in a crisis situation. If I hadn't already dismissed him as a serious candidate because of his poor temper and arrogance, this would have been the deciding factor.

@Bren -

Try forcing everyone one else to pay for your self-declared altruistic ventures via government taxation and bureaucratic policy initiatives.

And I wasn't making a judgment call on what Rick decides to do within his own family unit - that's Rick's business. I was making a judgment call on you for turning such a situation into a political weapon used to wage a partisan battle.

BTW - You must find it utterly disgusting how Obama used to and probably still does smoke cigarettes in front of his children, exposing them to second hand smoke, especially during their developmental and formative years. What does such action say about his character in regards to handling situations as President, that we all must suffer for his personal bad decisions? Certainly seems to be the case with his gamble on subsidizing green energy businesses, doesn't it? Unless of course you bundle millions of dollars for his campaigns, then you don't have to suffer, cause Obama will make sure that the taxpayers bail you out!

Personally, I'll take Rick's character over Obama's any day of the week!

Mr. Hoffa, I wouldn't force someone to contribute to a cause even if I could. That feeling, that motivation, of wanting to give of oneself to make someone else's life a little better can only come from within.

Concerning your accusation that I am using that sad story as a political weapon, how do I even know about it? You must ask yourself why what would otherwise be a highly private and controversial story would be shared.

I don't know what to say about smoking, except that it is a habit that wreaks havoc on the health insurance costs. I wouldn't compare a cigarette to this situation, however. In Obama's case I understood that he had quit or was trying to quit.

I believe that you mentioned that you liked Santorum as a candidate. But we are all the sum of our parts. Those "parts" become all-important when an individual is seeking election to the office of President of the U.S. That includes the things that person says, acts, and in this case, self-chooses to reveal.

@Bren how would you react to the loss of a baby? different people grieve in different ways.... who are you to say how one person or family should grieve? how would you have reacted to a 6 year old when you came home without the baby? however you bring up a very interesting point.... you called the dead child a stillborn baby, whey didn't you call it a stillborn fetus? at what point does that fetus change into a baby for you? does life begin at conception or birth?

Mike, I must modify my narrative based on additional research. The baby lived for only two hours after birth. Concerning your question about when life begins, I would answer that this is an answer currently beyond the determination of science if defined by the moment in which cognition begins. We define an individual who has lost cognitive function but retains a heartbeat "brain dead." There are individuals with Alzheimer's who have lost virtually all memory of previous life but are otherwise healthy. What is "life?" For the latter, we define them as "alive" because there is evidence of previous cognitive function. For the fetus we see underdeveloped physical growth, movement, and rudimentary reactions. Is cognition taking place? Without a legitimate means of testing and analyzing prenatal cognition this will remain a matter of conjecture. I would also take this moment to express my view that cutting programs for prenatal health can result in lifelong physical and cognitive challenges for a child.

A six year old can understand death to a degree. Personally I would have told the child that the baby was very sick and Jesus decided that it was better for the baby to join him in heaven right away because He and baby didn't want everyone to be sad (merciful God). There would be a time and place to provide more information and have a memorial service in a few years when all children could understand and participate. I know that's how my parents would have handled it.

For the same reasons that I don't put bumper stickers on my car. Why mess up something I want to look nice and paid good money for with a political sign? I don't let contractors put their advertising on my front lawn for the same reason (the exception being a remodeler who was celebrating their 50th anniversary and donated some money to a charity of my choosing if we allowed him to do so). It's also not important to me that every passerby or fellow traveler (so to speak - although fellow travelers are probably more up your alley) know who or what causes I support. I think the majority of people feel pretty much the same as I do. Which would explain the situation you find puzzling regarding the results of the election versus the relative preponderance of lawn signs.

Not really that hard to figure out - or shouldn't be, particularly for someone who works in the landscaping industry.

Jason it's called having a life, politics and ideology do not determine who we are, unlike you. When you put your apron on in the morning with your heels, you are a liberal first, and a eunuch second.

Jason:

You seem pretty upset over the presence of 'I stand with Walker' signs--perhaps your neighbors are doing their best to not push you over the edge. They also might be trying to avoid having your hostilities directed at them...

Never thought I'd find myself saying this, but please don't insult Olbermann that way. He's at least parlayed being a failure into a lucrative career at the expense of his well-heeled, politically-aligned benefactors. Jason's still working his day job(s).

Ima, honestly, practically, how does the tone of your post differ from what you are accusing others of doing? Projection.

Bren, honestly. Yes, I am being honest, no projection. Unlike JP. His shtick is to attack with invectives with what he lacks in substance. He plays to the lowest playground mentality. Which is why he needs to look in the mirror if he is to be taken seriously, but he can't look.