Yet another example of why America sucks: Karl Rove is not only a free man, he's a mainstay of cable news.

If George W. Bush didn't lie about WMD's in Iraq, then maybe him, or Karl Rove, can do the following for us Americans:

1) The EXACT location of every WMD, down the square milimeter.
2) The EXACT type of WMD (Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological).
3) Who, located it, when, how.
4) Was this part of the material Saddam showed the world just three months before the invasion?

Yes, we didn't find any nuclear, chemical or biolgoical weapons of mass destruction. Karl Rove, is KNOWN to lie on many, many, things. Why should anyone accept that he's telling the 100% truth now? Would you believe, someone who has been a pathological liar their entire life?

There's a word that best discribes Republicans existance for the last ten years: Irresponsible!

If Rove's lips are moving, it's a pretty sure bet that he's lying. I suspect the same is true when they're not moving. Why does this slimeball still get airtime?

Since when has "I read somewhere" or "Heard he" been enough for you to believe someone else?

Well if you can trust Wikipedia. I tend to frame what I hear on Wiki as 'I've heard' because some of it is trustworthy and some isn't. But this seems legit enough. Seems he gave at least 400,000 last year of his own cash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#Charitable_work

As for the other stuff - I've looked around and I can find no substantiation to the claim that Limbaugh said, "Do not donate." That appears to be a very 'out of context' comment where he said, "If you're going to donate do it outside the government." The comment he made in no way appears to tell people not to donate to Haiti. He appears to have said, "The government won't do a good job, so if you want to donate then do it some other way." He also went on to say that our taxes already paid for whatever money the US is donating (true), and that people who donate would probably end up on a White House mailing list. But I can't find anywhere he said "Don't donate". That is what seems to be a typical misrepresentation.

Now granted, Limbaugh must know that this sort of stuff is going to happen so you think he'd be better about choosing his words - but with Media Matters & other lib places constantly waiting for quotes to lift out of context (and 15 hours a week of talk to winnow) it must be next to impossible to avoid controversy.

And Obama is doing a good job compared to Bush? Pht. The reports indicate roving gangs, violence, starvation, piled corpses, doctors fleeing for safety, unrest, fear, and death. And WHERE exactly is Obama today? In Massachusetts trying to save the Democrat senate seat of Kennedy from going to a Republican. With all the harping on "Where was Bush? Why wasn't here there for a few days? Why did it take so long?" it is more than fair to level the same accusations at Obama as were being leveled at Bush. The Democrats & liberals were the ones to start this game of politicizing disasters and death. How exactly is it fair to harp on Bush for being insensitive when his delays were caused by local Democrat political incompetence, but Obama's delays because of his focus on a single Senate seat is not fair?

And yes - I donated to Haiti through a private organization (the smartest way to donate). Did YOU?

This is a really good audio and fleet representation of what happens in the larger 0.0 battles. The new patch, ironically, is aimed at reducing these types of massive engagements to more hit and run kind of fights. The days of the mega alliances might be over and the rise of the static industrialist and the roving gang might be the new order of the day instead of the static super pvp power, and the opportunistic carebear.

This is from the Australian show "rove". This is also from the distant past.

Overcast, you seem to be "divorced from reality" as Karl Rove's male prostitute once said. We haven't been excited about Obama for months and no one likes the democratic party. FOXNews is a news maker, they do something unprecedented and profoundly newsworthy almost weekly.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker

I agree "neocon" has been overused, most of the time as a perjorative, but "Neoconservative" is a more accurate description of a single entity and movement than "Neoliberal." Specifically, "Neoconservatism" in its recent use describes the Republican base mobilization in the 2000 election by Karl Rove.

The problem with "Neoliberal," especially as it relates to President Obama, is that Obama's electorate was much more varied and not centrally mobilized. There isn't a single idealogically-unified bloc in the middle of the electorate as there was in the 2000 or 2004 elections. Most Obama supporters hardly agree on anything, as in the health care debate; the farther-left Obama voters say that Obama should stop trying to be bipartisan and pass single-payer health care reform by the democratic majority alone, and the farther-right Obama voters want health care reform toned down, without even a mandate for everyone to be insured.

Your other points have validity as relating to the way some liberal-minded people think, but I don't see any evidence that there is a unified liberal movement with those ideas as part of its platform. That's how you see it because you conceive of yourself as being opposed to them.

I mean, I hate all of Fox's pundit shows and I think everyone watching them is getting brainwashed through the cultural pressure they exert, but I know that all of Fox's audience doesn't think the same, and they don't all take the same idealogical path to get there. Some of them come from religious backgrounds, others have kind of macho atheist ideas of people fending for themselves, and others just started paying attention to politics at the wrong time and from their perspective it looks like Fox aren't the ones wearing tinted glasses. But if you listen to those pundits, they paint me and anyone that dislikes them with the same brush, we're all zombies for Obama, communists, or "neolibs."

I live in a small town in the middle of rural Western Washington state. We have a large deer population that roves through town with impunity.

Last year, someone hit a buck with an arrow -- same as here, didn't kill it, deer wandered town until it was humanely dispatched.

What I found interesting is how angry the hunting community became. They were instrumental in discovering who had done it. I thought that was cool.

There was also a huge outcry, money was collected for a reward leading to arrest. What wasn't cool is that a young woman had been raped the next small town over -- very shocking in our small town, which is still pretty safe as communities go.

The deer got more coverage in the local (once a week) paper. Folks didn't step forward offering cash for a reward to capture the rapist.

I know it is all human nature, but still. Sometimes I get depressed by us.

I didn't say I believe it. I said I would entertain it. There is a major difference.

If you honestly believe that Dick Cheney, as vice-president, was completely innocent of all wrong doing, I can't have a conversation with you.

The man's actions for the last eight years need to be carefully scrutinized. He ought to be investigated for all sorts of things. No, I don't think you could ever pin something like "he knew about flight 77 in advance" on him. I think you could get him for having assassination squads (i.e. Blackwater/Xe services), I think you can get him for authorizing illegal torture, I think you can get him for lying to the american people about justification for war (and the manufacturing of evidence to support his case), I think you might even be able to get him for profiteering if you look closely enough.

The man is a criminal, and has been since he was riding Tricky's Dick. This is, of course, not to mention the other people I think should be investigated carefully, i.e. Richard Perle, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and of course the baby Bush.

The real danger of conspiracy theories is the bias their prevalence puts against skepticism of official stories. Fear of association with crazies prevents the rational questioning of our public servants' activities. Therein lies the real danger.

Karl Rove plays the political game well. Someone should do something about that.

>> ^blankfist:
I used to think there were wizards in my neighborhood, too. Until I realized they were orthodox Jews. Zing!


Reminds me of the first time I drove down La Brea. The sight of them in roving groups was... inspiring! I wanna be an Orthodox Jew.

^ I think the whole thing is part of the classic Karl Rove playbook: project your own weaknesses on your opponent.

There's a legitimate case for questioning McCain's natural-born status? Let's just raise questions about Obama's natural-born status, and force the conversation to be about that instead.

Now that you're a 'made man' Karl Rove can't wack you.

Almost reminds me of a daily show montage.

I do love the attacks on her intelligence. As Karl Rove rightly put it, "I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools"...many of whom he served with in the Bush admin. Although I don't think the stupid people graduate at the top of their class.