Quote :

"I want you to stay home on Election Day because you must accept the fact that your party has abandoned you. You've gotta accept the fact that your vote doesn't matter anyway. So all you Democrats, stay home. So, you know, why don't you stay home on Election Day? This is how the press is going to report this: "Hannity says Democrats should stay home on Election Day.""

Quote :

"I don't think abandoning our troops on the battlefield or closing your eyes to enemy communications or listening to enemy communications in our country, or killing the economy, or supporting illegal immigration, I don't think that's something to run on. So I'm saying, for the sake of the nation, I think you Democrats should stay home. For you there's no reason to vote. "

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610200001

So....people who dont agree w/ your political party shouldnt vote? I am not sure if thats how democracy works.

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 9:20 PM. Reason : 956]

10/19/2006 9:18:57 PM

Quote :

"or supporting illegal immigration,"

Funny, what have the repubs done recently in regards to the illegal immigration problem other than pissing money away on a stupid fence?

10/19/2006 9:21:31 PM

vernon robinson, repug-D, will single-handedly close our 5-million mile border.

10/19/2006 9:22:33 PM

Hannity is feeling the heat from the democrats, obviously. or he sees that his precious republicans may be in danger of losing some seats.
that's a fucking asshole thing to say, though, just because you're scared.
.... good thing that, if anything, this will energize democrats even more to go vote

10/19/2006 10:39:47 PM

no question, they're scared. impeachment day nears.

10/19/2006 10:41:58 PM

nobody's going to get impeached, or at least nothing will come of it if it does somehow happen.

but if anyone is guilty of abandoning constituents, it's the GOP.

10/19/2006 10:49:06 PM

I always encourage others to avoid voting, regardless of their party affiliation. All these damn people keep watering down my vote's significance.

10/19/2006 11:35:22 PM

Quote :

"but if anyone is guilty of abandoning constituents, it's the GOP."

that is a fact...however

when i think about where the country would go if dems were in charge...i get scared...its really a matter of what i think is best for the country...no i dont think the GOP is great...far from it...but the dems are infinitly worse

10/19/2006 11:44:27 PM

Fuck, Republicans should stay home too... Both parties suck...

10/19/2006 11:47:02 PM

Quote :

"but the dems are infinitly worse"

do you have any REASONS to back this up, or is it just something you heard hannity say

how would the dems controlling the house, perhaps, be INFINITLY worse than how things are now?

[Edited on October 20, 2006 at 12:06 AM. Reason : .]

10/20/2006 12:05:43 AM

I don't know how it can get worse than Bush's policies in Iraq creating more terrorist, and general negativity towards brown people.

10/20/2006 1:42:59 AM

ok wolfweb i'll give in

one republican idea i liked more than democrats was putting more troops at the border and build some big ass wall

10/20/2006 4:48:29 AM

Quote :

"So....people who dont agree w/ your political party shouldnt vote? I am not sure if thats how democracy works. "

I don't think he is saying that. More to the point I think his comments are coming from desperation. He's trying to get Democratic voters to buy into an idea that they have already lost so he can get them to believe that they might as well not vote. He really knows that if they did vote his party would probably lose out.

It's the same reason a lot of people would like to see a limitation in media coverage during a presidential election. The fear being that the election may be "called" before polling centers on the west coast are closed. If people saw that the election was "called" and that their candidate of choice wouldn't win they probably wouldn't bother voting in the first place. The net result is fewer votes for the guy that has supposedly already lost.

Sounds like this guy is trying to use this as a campaign strategy.

[Edited on October 20, 2006 at 7:37 AM. Reason : -]

10/20/2006 7:36:02 AM

Quote :

"how would the dems controlling the house, perhaps, be INFINITLY worse than how things are now?"

I hope they do win the house, if only to energize the republicans into acting like their old selves again for '08.

BUT, when they win the house, we're going to a see a complete stalemate of laws. Nothing will get passed in both houses and we won't get social security reform, we won't see anything change in anything. The only thing that will happen is the economy will continue to chug along nicely towards its "soft landing" and the democrats will take credit for the shrinking deficit (the one that is already happening)

God I wanted social security reform to be Bush's legacy. He could have gone down as a good president even with all the fuckups if he'd had the balls to push that legislation through Congress. We HAVE to fix it, and I don't think it will be a democratic president that does it, unless it happens to be during a 2nd term. And even then, they'll simply up the highest taxable bracket for SS and push back the eligible retirement dates, rather than actually fixing the monstrosity.

10/20/2006 7:40:32 AM

In a nutshell, what is the Republican Social Security plan? I haven't followed that issue hardly at all.

10/20/2006 7:50:13 AM

Before it had been a privatization of part of social security. Really as a stepping stone towards more privatization later. Then, it was a combination of the other three choices: raising the highest taxable rate, cutting benefits, and extending the working period.

The privatization was the important part, because its the only non-temporary fix. The other one's just extend the time that the behemoth will last. Democrats aren't generally in the mood to fix it, because they like people being dependent on the government and if they don't fix it, they get the overhaul it and make it even more ridiculous when it's bankrupting. (not all democrats, mind you)

And most people are simply like "yeah, raise the tax on the rich, that's fine" but they don't realize what a big jump in taxes it will take. They raise the tax limit and people have to pay 7.65% on a higher portion of their income, even though they'll never receive any additional social security for it later. Its going to subsidize others. Then, if you're self employed, its 15.3%

___
Now they don't have a plan, because when Congress balked, Bush folded.

[Edited on October 20, 2006 at 7:56 AM. Reason : .]

10/20/2006 7:56:12 AM

Hannity is doing what the president told him to do.

Quote :

"October 17, 2006 As Talk Radio Wavers, Bush Moves to Firm Up Support By JIM RUTENBERG WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 — On an overcast Friday morning last month, White House aides ushered an influential group of conservative radio hosts into the Oval Office for a private audience with the president. For an hour and a half, Mr. Bush discussed his case for the war in Iraq, his immigration proposals and even the personality of his Scottish terrier Barney, who scratched on the door during the session until the president relented and let him into the office, according to several hosts who attended. The meeting, which was not announced on the president’s public schedule, was part of an intensive Republican Party campaign to reclaim and re-energize a crucial army of supporters that is not as likely to walk in lockstep with the White House as it has in the past. Conservative radio hosts are breaking with the Republican leadership in ways not seen in at least a decade, and certainly not since Rush Limbaugh’s forceful advocacy of the party in 1994 spawned a new generation of stars, said Michael Harrison, publisher of the industry’s lead trade publication, Talkers. Disgruntlement can now be found not only among the more flamboyant radio voices, like Michael Savage, who raged against Mr. Bush’s proposals on immigration and other issues, but also among more mainstream hosts, like Laura Ingraham, who told her listeners in the wake of the scandal involving former Representative Mark Foley and under-age Congressional pages, “You have to ask yourself, the people who are in positions of power now in the Republican Party, are they able to credibly articulate the conservative agenda to the American people — to rally the base, to rally the country?” Such questions, coming from such quarters, have created yet another challenge for the White House and the central party leadership as they work to steer Republicans to victory next month in the face of low approval ratings and dissatisfaction among the party faithful. Strategists on both sides agree that the party’s greatest hope for holding control of Congress now rests with its ability to get core Republicans to vote, and that talk radio, which reaches millions of them, is crucial to the task. Democratic strategists say talk radio remains a fearsome Republican advocacy force for which they have little direct answer. (Air America, which features liberal hosts, including Al Franken, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last week.) The top two rated conservative hosts, Mr. Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have done more than their part to rally their listeners this year, especially during the Foley scandal, to the great relief of Republican Party officials. And even those critical of Mr. Bush or the party on specific issues still consider themselves major supporters in general, with perhaps the exception of Mr. Savage. But Mr. Savage is the third most popular host in the nation, with at least eight million listeners weekly, according to Talkers. And the Democrats have watched happily as he and others have at times sent reverberations of conservative frustration into what they often call the “Republican echo chamber.” The challenge now falls to party strategists to persuade the hosts to overcome the frustrations of many hard-core listeners over issues like spending and border security without alienating them. “When conservatives are agitated at the president, radio hosts feel pressured to stand with the conservatives against the president to prove their independence,” said Tim Graham, an analyst at the Media Research Center, a conservative news monitoring group. But, Mr. Graham said, “realizing what life would be like if we lost the House is concentrating people’s minds.” The White House and the Republican National Committee are hammering home that point in interviews, talking-point bulletins and a healthy dollop of pomp that only a White House can provide. The effort will peak on Oct. 24, when the administration will hold something of a talk-radio summit meeting, inviting dozens of hosts to set up booths on the White House grounds, where top cabinet officials are expected to sit for interviews. The party chairman, Ken Mehlman, has already been working overtime on the talk radio circuit. From Wednesday to Friday of last week, he was interviewed a total of 20 times in Missouri, Tennessee and Ohio, promoting party stances on tax cuts and terrorism. But, several hosts said, the most telling development so far this year was the White House decision to invite some of the most popular hosts to the Oval Office for off-the-record time with the president. Kevin Sullivan, the White House communications director, said the meeting was among the latest examples of the administration’s effort to put Mr. Bush in front of more news media as his own best spokesman. The president also gave interviews recently to several television anchors and held an Oval Office chat with a group of conservative writers. And Mr. Bush granted an on-camera interview to Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel. The first of three parts ran Monday night. Still, officials said, the meeting with the radio hosts gave Mr. Bush a chance to speak intimately with a group that reaches an overwhelmingly Republican audience of 30 million people per week. “You want to make sure that your friends are friendly,” said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, who has been crucial to the effort and who was a conservative radio host who turned harshly critical of Mr. Bush just months before he went to work for him last spring. Mr. Snow said that while “any party has its disagreements,” there was little division among Republicans on the top two issues Mr. Bush has tried to push this year: terrorism and taxes. And the fight against terrorism dominated the discussion at the meeting. “This was clearly, clearly an effort to kind of rally the troops when the troops need rallying,” said Mike Gallagher, who attended the meeting and whose daily program reaches at least 3.75 million people each week. “They know that we’ve got an audience of people who may or may not be on the political fence right now.” Mr. Gallagher said that he and the other hosts — Mr. Hannity, Ms. Ingraham, Neal Boortz and Michael Medved — talked about the experience on their programs “for days and days and days.” (Mr. Limbaugh said that he met with Mr. Bush and Karl Rove, the president’s chief strategist, in the Oval Office in June, but generally tried to keep his distance to maintain independence.) On his Web site, Mr. Medved wrote how Mr. Bush spoke about his commitment to his immigration plan in terms of the fight against terrorism. He said the president made a case that if he were to give in to conservative complaints, “the nation’s enemies (and the rest of the world) would take away the belief that the president could be bullied, prodded, overwhelmed and intimidated.” Mr. Hannity said of the meeting, “I think he’d have an 80 percent approval rating if he could bring people into the Oval Office six people at a time and explain it all to them.” But Ms. Ingraham, who recently went bike riding with the president, has continued to complain about federal spending, progress in Iraq and, lately, the Republican leadership’s handling of the Foley scandal. Ms. Ingraham likened herself to a sports fan who nonetheless has occasional criticism of the coach. But, she said pointedly on her show: “I am not an advocate for the G.O.P. I’m an advocate for conservative ideas.” "

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/us/politics/17radio.html

10/20/2006 8:31:59 AM

treetwista supports this thread.

10/20/2006 8:36:08 AM

Quote :

"And even then, they'll simply up the highest taxable bracket for SS and push back the eligible retirement dates, rather than actually fixing the monstrosity."

this is exactly HOW you can easily fix it. if you need more money, then raise the amount that's put in and push back retirement dates. i see nothing wrong with that. isn't that exactly how regan did it? could be wrong

10/20/2006 9:36:16 AM

They could really save the program. What's life expectancy? 72? Just push the age up to 80 and problem solved.

10/20/2006 9:44:50 AM

sober thinks you should support shitty candidates and use your constitutional right to support the lesser evil of two shitty candidates that you dont believe in, just because you have the right to vote!

"Hey do you want to buy the giant douche or the turd sandwich?" "Well, I hate them both, but I have the option to buy one so I might as well!!"

10/20/2006 9:52:08 AM

So what you are saying, is there is no candidate whatsoever that has any values/ideals that you align with? Do you have any idea how the democratic process works?

10/20/2006 9:59:42 AM

why are you getting so defensive? do you not support this idea of not voting?

10/20/2006 10:00:19 AM

Quote :

"this is exactly HOW you can easily fix it. if you need more money, then raise the amount that's put in and push back retirement dates. i see nothing wrong with that. isn't that exactly how regan did it? could be wrong "

hahaha, ok, If Regan (<~~Who is that?) did it and it fixes the problem, then why are we talking about having to do it now? Because it is a) temporary and b) unfair.

Its temporary nature is the major problem, but look at the second portion. What it does is causes people to pay into a system MORE money than they could ever get out of it. How is that fair? They might as well just tax those people and tell them its for redistribution, not for their own future benefit.

IMO, the first step is to make our congressmen and congresswomen pay into social security. You know, they're exempt from that.

10/20/2006 10:03:31 AM

Quote :

"Regan (<~~Who is that?)"

OH NOES SPELLING ERROR

Quote :

"then why are we talking about having to do it now"

because of baby-boomers and extended life expectancy

by the way, it wont be bankrupt until, what 40-50 years from now? a tiny increase could push it even further until all these old baby-boomers are dead and gone

Quote :

"What it does is causes people to pay into a system MORE money than they could ever get out of it."

i dont think that is true. do you have any data?

[Edited on October 20, 2006 at 10:06 AM. Reason : /]

10/20/2006 10:05:30 AM

They don't get it either, so why should they pay into it?

10/20/2006 10:05:58 AM

Quote :

"why are you getting so defensive? do you not support this idea of not voting?"

if you vote for a candidate you dont support or believe in, just because you can vote, thats utterly stupid

which is it for you sober, the giant douche or the turd sandwich? they both sound so appealing dont they

10/20/2006 10:06:45 AM

Quote :

"sober thinks you should support shitty candidates and use your constitutional right to support the lesser evil of two shitty candidates that you dont believe in, just because you have the right to vote! "Hey do you want to buy the giant douche or the turd sandwich?" "Well, I hate them both, but I have the option to buy one so I might as well!!""

it's always been like that.

But now, Turd Sandwhich, the lesser of two evils in the eyes of perhaps the majority of the country right now, might have a chance at taking control from Giant Douche, who has gone from being a popular party to being on the ropes by acting like, well.... a bunch of Douches. So now the Giant Douche talking heads have reverted to telling the Turd supporters to just stay at home because "the Turd has betrayed you". All you're really trying to do is keep your Douche in power.

10/20/2006 10:07:25 AM

so why, even if you didn't like either candidate, would you NOT want to vote for the lesser of two evils?

10/20/2006 10:10:34 AM

well, obviously because if you don't like either candidate/party, it's better to just leave things alone the way they are

10/20/2006 10:12:43 AM

Answer this Twista you troll dumbass

Quote :

"So what you are saying, is there is no candidate whatsoever that has any values/ideals that you align with? Do you have any idea how the democratic process works?"

How come you were curiously absent from the board yesterday, and so was your faggy boyfriend trikk?

Why does this keep happening, that the two of you NEVER post without the other?

10/20/2006 10:13:49 AM

Quote :

"so why, even if you didn't like either candidate, would you NOT want to vote for the lesser of two evils?"

why the fuck would you want to support something you dont believe in

^actually i did post on tww yesterday but i wouldnt expect you to address facts like that in your "arguments"

10/20/2006 10:21:57 AM

Quote :

"if you vote for a candidate you dont support or believe in, just because you can vote, thats utterly stupid which is it for you sober, the giant douche or the turd sandwich? they both sound so appealing dont they "

1. you didnt answer my question. i pointed out that you agree with hannity's philosophy and you got defensive and started talking about turds. do you not agree with hannity?

2. how many times are there only two candidates to vote for? i know you don't vote, so ill answer the question for you: rarely. you simply can't make this a black and white issue. there are alternatives to your turd sandwiches. i encourage you to try voting sometime....it's a good feeling.

[Edited on October 20, 2006 at 10:25 AM. Reason : i]

10/20/2006 10:23:54 AM

He cowers in fear of a voting both. Brings back childhood memories of being locked in a closet.

10/20/2006 10:26:46 AM

Quote :

"i pointed out that you agree with hannity's philosophy and you got defensive and started talking about turds. do you not agree with hannity?"

no i dont...wow once again you put words in my mouth

Quote :

"2. how many times are there only two candidates to vote for? i know you don't vote, so ill answer the question for you: rarely. you simply can't make this a black and white issue. there are alternatives to your turd sandwiches. i encourage you to try voting sometime....it's a good feeling. "

i encourage you to bear arms...its a constitutional right also...its a good feeling

^gosh you are the best debater, you never resort to anything childish

10/20/2006 10:30:13 AM

I wasn't aware a debate was going on?

10/20/2006 10:36:17 AM

well thats obvious

10/20/2006 10:36:56 AM

Quote :

"I wasn't aware a debate was going on?"

...you wouldnt be..

10/20/2006 10:37:55 AM

Pretty sure my question has been left unanswered. It's not my fault you don't know how to reply cognitively.


GET THE FUCK OUT OF SOAP BOX

10/20/2006 10:44:12 AM

which retarded question was that?

10/20/2006 10:45:12 AM

You can't read?

10/20/2006 10:52:07 AM

you cant clarify which question of the multiple questions youve asked you are referring to?

10/20/2006 10:53:47 AM

I've asked two questions in this thread. One clearly to you, and one clearly to bgmims.

2 != multiple.

Answer my question.

10/20/2006 11:07:54 AM

Quote :

"I've asked two questions in this thread"

1.

Quote :

"State409c: Funny, what have the repubs done recently in regards to the illegal immigration problem other than pissing money away on a stupid fence?"

2.

Quote :

"State409c: So what you are saying, is there is no candidate whatsoever that has any values/ideals that you align with? Do you have any idea how the democratic process works?"

3.

Quote :

"State409c: They don't get it either, so why should they pay into it?"

4.

Quote :

"State409c: How come you were curiously absent from the board yesterday, and so was your faggy boyfriend trikk?"

5.

Quote :

"State409c: Why does this keep happening, that the two of you NEVER post without the other?"

6.

Quote :

"State409c: I wasn't aware a debate was going on?"

7.

Quote :

"State409c: You can't read?"

multiple != two

clarify your question you moron

10/20/2006 11:13:00 AM

Quote :

"no i dont...wow once again you put words in my mouth "

then what is your philosophy?

Quote :

"i encourage you to bear arms...its a constitutional right also...its a good feeling"

i have and i agree. but you still haven't voted.

10/20/2006 11:14:24 AM

is there some new requirement that says you have to vote?

Quote :

"Warm...and mandatory"

10/20/2006 11:22:41 AM

no....did someone say that there was?

and how is your philosophy different from hannity?

hannity:

Quote :

"You've gotta accept the fact that your vote doesn't matter anyway. "

you:

Quote :

"i guess you at least admit to yourself (though never aloud) that your voting hasnt made a difference"

[Edited on October 20, 2006 at 11:39 AM. Reason : d]

10/20/2006 11:35:57 AM

Quote :

"why the fuck would you want to support something you dont believe in"

because maybe you'd rather be sorta fucked than totally fucked?

10/20/2006 11:38:21 AM

Quote :

"when i think about where the country would go if dems were in charge...i get scared...its really a matter of what i think is best for the country...no i dont think the GOP is great...far from it...but the dems are infinitly worse"

If that's not proof that the republicans are fearmongering, I don't know what is. What is it you think the Democrats would succeed in doing that's so bad? It's the idealogues that are ruining the country. People who think they can call a special session of congress to interfere with the Terry Schiavo thing.

It's not like the republicans would have no say. We just need some balance. Either give the democrats a small majority in congress with a republican president, or a democratic president with a narrow republican majority in congress.

10/20/2006 11:44:05 AM

what am i afraid the dems would do??

- stop listening to terrorist conversations
- confer constitutional rights on terrorists
- pull out of iraq
- "handle" the situations in iran and NK with those amazingly succesfull talks that they always want...and by giving out basketballs
- raise taxes
- install activist judges
- try to make me like gay marriage
- not try to solve the social security problem that we have
- bend over to the wishes of everyone who has a problem with the united states
- let terrorists decide what our foreign policy should be


i mean...i could continue...those are just a few things that come to mind. And i realize that you probably disagree with a lot of those...but those are things I am afraid of

10/20/2006 11:50:38 AM