Lucky...

And t thnk it could have been worse..... fortunatley these assfucks aren't well organized, or it could be well into 3 digits. Go to a major campus between classes and there are hundreds of students walking down the outside walkways, a derranged fuck could kill over 100 by himself....scary shit.

I agree with some of that and I wasn't horribly offiended by his assinine asertions, but he directed those comments to a specific group of overachieving young ladies, these are kids to me and they deserve the right to enjoy their successes w.o some asshole interfering. I wish they would just sue his ass of millions. I can say: All skydivers suck and probably not get banned from here, but if I call out a specific group or a specific DZ, I'm outy. Get it?

All that rant and no address to this: - Reg Repub - A Clinton hater - A McCain supporter - A Gore hater I'm SHOCKED (not) OK, you have almost exclusive Republican ideals, yet you a flaming liberal, ok. Can I call you Imus? If we laid out the various elements of politics, you would lie somewhere as a moderate or more rightwinger. I know you think medical care s/b selective/exclusive, you have no problems throwing tons of cash at militayr contractors for teh war and I bet you have Christian leanings. If I'm wrong, tell me where ya stand. I'm all left except guns and AA, does that make me moderate? Not really, maybe moderate left, but not middle of the road. Or calling you teh former to discredit you, the latter to praise you. I don't call people either as a form of argument, that's an ad hominem, but I might address a person's bias to a point. IOW's, I doubt I ever labeled you a cobservative, hence you're wrong, just that you're a cnservative, hence you are unwilling to see the other side. Am I gonna whine that that's teh 2nd time you've implied i have a hard time grasping teh concept? Nah, hell, you didn't even address teh Imus issue, so we can't move on from there yet. Kinda funny you say that when I voted for Perot, then Dole, then Dem ever since. I voted Dem in teh 80's BTW. And yet you whine abiout labels but want to label me as a person who can't grasp I think it is possible for people not to lean, but not probable. Most people tend to gravitate to a side n issues and these sides are usually intrarelated to other like issues. IOW's, I find fiscal righties defending so-called moral values, even tho they can give a shit less. But for Imus to be polar ad adamant the way he is is obviously just for shock. Another way to look at it is that he has hated the last 2 presidents, so perhaps he's a whner, but it is impossible to assign him to a party.

Remember Jimmy the Greek? n all fairness, them chicks do look like hos - tattooed nappy haired gangster hos... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Right on!!!!!!! Imus and Sharpton have been going at it for years........Imus used to call Sharpton a water buffalo with a wig! I do not think what Imus said was racist. Crass and rude, yes....racist, no. Shaprton and Black Power won this round! Naw, it was racist and sexist. Nappy hair is prone to blacks and we all love ho's, they are easy chicks. I think the expression is funny, but when directed it'snot. Hell, he's lucky if they don't sue for defamation.

Right, that's what I said, Dorbie won't let it go and wants to pin him on us, when he is non-partisn, just a joke.

Hmmmm, based on their approach, no. They are defending rappers, just as Spike Leee did. There is a slight difference in that rappers generally don't direct their insults at specific individuals rather than groups, but the whole thing stinks. In a heterogenious society we need to be accross teh board, and Jackson/Sharpton are just keeping alive the AA drive rather than letting it die to keep benefits rlling in. But this isn't about those 2 clowns, this is about an old POS that needed to go years/decades ago. The whole free speech thing is such a joke, as other than teh FCC there is no governmental action in these matters. Stern has a point with that, but teh FCC dodn't intervene here as I know it. Peoiple drop Constitutional rantings at every turn w/o even knowing what teh Bill of Rights is or how many const Amends we have, let alone know anything about const case law. But I see your point and they should STFU and let the process take place insead of being the whores they are.

It starte by me saying he is a conservative maggot and Lindsey and Dorbie jumped in and said he is lefty liberal. Really a side argument, so you are right, unimportant to the theme of teh thread. After research I found he is all over the place, hates the Bushs so he voted for Kerry, now is McCain crazy. He's Reg Repub according to one poster that has listened to him for years, he despises the Clintons and Gore too. I find more that supports he leans right, but not by much. The guy has made a fool of his listening audience unless you just listen to him for comedic value and take nothing he says seriously. He is a joke and has established that, but his politics are neither left nor right, they're AFU.

Simply continuing to un from my argument doesn't resolve anything. I addressed your side ofthe argument: - He voted for Kerry - He hates the Bush's But you justdon't want to discuss all sides of teh argument including: - He pledges his vote for McCain - He is pro Iraq War - He hates teh Clintons - He hates Gore - He is a registered Repblican Truth is both party pundits dislike him, as they see the opposite side of him and disregard the side of him that parallels their beliefs. The guy has no party affiliation and is all over the map. Hmmm, maybe that's why tehy acall him a shock-jock; just when you have him figured out, he waffles on ya. He has played the public as fools, he has used them for his fiscal gain. There is a conservative maggot side of him and a liberal side, can you refute that? No, it won;t help your argument to do so and you are here to attempt to wn the arg, not find truth. Just explain to me how a guy can be a liberal or a Dem when jis beliefs are: - He pledges his vote for McCain - He is pro Iraq War - He hates teh Clintons - He hates Gore - He is a registered Repblican Just as I can't argue he is a full-time conservative when he: - Voted for Kerry - Hates the Bushs Which was that? He ran away a while ago. I'm gonna make teh LA Times my homepage and live on their every word. At the same time, teh Fox news areticle I posted earlier made references he is not left, so fuck teh media. Instead of looking for people to save you here, "Lindsey said...." The LA Times said....", why not actually learn to develope an arguement and stat by addressing all teh points, the substantive points: - Voted for Kerry - Hates the Bushs & - He pledges his vote for McCain - He is pro Iraq War - He hates teh Clintons - He hates Gore - He is a registered Repblican Insteadof, "Uh, my friends all back me and er, uh, the LA newspapaer said so and er, um, uh, that's it." Really sad. USe the overet known facts, not your friend's loyalty or some media rag. I don't, but you ignore his pledge to vote for McCain, and that was a year or two ago. ACCORDING TO MCCAIN HIMSELF, HE IS A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN; is that hard for you to grasp? He is fiscally conservative, he is bigtime pro war when even staunch conservatives are against it, what else do you need? Do you need a swastika armband for him to be far right? He is a self-described far right winger, but you say no. Really, well then who the fuck is voting for McCAin? He is slumming in teh polls, I think he's 3rd at best, so it's all teh sissy liberals looking past Obama, Hillary and Edwards nd voting for McCain? A person's political leanings/position is a total compilation of teh major issues, majot people they back and their issues. 1 deviation is just that, several deviations moves them along the continuum. IOW's, a person has a hard time saying they are pro gay marriage, pro abortion rights, pro welfare and call themselves a conservative. I'm liberal, but I am pro gun and anti affirmative action, but other than that I parallel myself with lefty views. I can find most conservatives with some lefty views, they generally hide them. Here are the fatcs you have selectively blinded yourself to: - He pledges his vote for McCain - He is pro Iraq War - He hates teh Clintons - He hates Gore - He is a registered Republican ...and here are the ones you selectively choose to identify: - Voted for Kerry - Hates the Bushs I look at em all, hence the guy is a political roadmap, you selectively ignore teh facts that hurt your argument. And your selective reasoning is typical and tiring Have the junk to address this: - He pledges his vote for McCain - He is pro Iraq War - He hates teh Clintons - He hates Gore - He is a registered Republican

And some people run from facts on a reguar basis, why not address these and be the first conservative to do so? - Reg Repub - A Clinton hater - A McCain supporter - A Gore hater The LA times has a lot more credibility than you and your cherry picking. "Democrat soapbox" just about sums it up. List of teh opinions that mean jackshit: - Media - mine - yours List of attribute that makes a person assigned to one party or another: - Who they vote for - Who they like - Who they dislike So why not address these attributes of Imus: - Reg Repub - A Clinton hater - A McCain supporter - A Gore hater ANSWER: You can't explain how Imus is a registered Repub, a Clinton hater, a Gore hater and a McCain supporter and is somehow a Democrat. Furthermore, he's Iraq war crazy, so that places him hard right. Either keep playing this game of avoid or have the guts to address the issues of how Imus is: - Reg Repub - A Clinton hater - A McCain supporter - A Gore hater ....and is still a Democrat.....

And some people run from facts on a reguar basis, why not address these and be the first conservative to do so? - Reg Repub - A Clinton hater - A McCain supporter - A Gore hater

I tend to agree with you on that. Keeping with Reagan Repub brother rules, back at every turn regadless of anything.

Compound what error? When I said that Imus was a conservative maggot? There is a side of him that is and a side that is liberal; he is a political anomoly. What is usual is that you refuse to acknowledge that Imus is planning on voting for McCain and hates the Clintons and Gore. You just keep spouting ridiculousness about him being a Democrat hen another poster who was a listener said Imus is a self-described registered Republican. Sad really, that you refuse to address both sides. Or is it that him not wearing a swastika armband he must be liberal? Calling my reasoning assinine is a PA. Moral high ground? I never claimed that, I leave that to the rigtwing moralist Catholic baby fuckers. I never claimed a moral hig ground. Strain? How, because you said so? If you have the ability, argue Imus being: - Reg Repub - A Clinton hater - A McCain supporter - A Gore hater Yiou won't, your arguments don't deal with fact, just more of the usual. Patently ludicrous reasoning? Instead of the trifecta of PA's, perhaps address the list above. I won't hold my breath.

And I don't want to hear it. LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA......................... Right, if it differs from what you want to hear/read, you shut it out, which is how conservatives argue.

Perhaps quit with the PA's. He also pleadged his future vote for McCain; why is ot that you talk the side of Imus you want, but let the other stuff go? Addressing one side of the argument is not objective argumentation. He's voting for McCain, a self-described conservative Republican, how is a person voting for a person like that to be considered lefty? He hates teh Clintons and Gore, the current monikers of teh dem party; how does that make him lefty? Instead of teh PA's, explain it.

I have watched the Imus show daily for years and also listened to him on the radio. Imus himself claimed on numerous occasions to be a registered republican. However, he also voted for democrats from time to time, most recently John Kerry. It seemed to me that he was critical of both sides and was independent politically. Thank you. Why is it the republicans/conservatves on DZ.COM refuse to address all teh hate that Imus spewed toward Clinton (both) and Gore? They keep trying to convince everyone that Imus is a Dem, yet refuse to address the batant info that would make one believe he is right. I think he is politically confused, as he voted Kerry, but loves McCain, he denounces Bush, but also denounces bothCLintons in a hateful way and calls Gore evil. Look, neo-cons on here, the guy has made a farse of politics and that has made him millions, he is neither left or rght, he's just a political anomoly.

Here's teh truth: he has no political leaning. He washes back and forth and basically makes a joke of politics. Fox calls him left leaning, the left pub I supplied earlier called him a closet Republican. I won't even say he's moderate, he's all over the map. He voted for Kerry last time, hates Bush, but loves McCain and hates both Clintons and Gore. What can you draw from that? Nothing, but to argue his political position is moot. I think he just says shit to garner attention, but now he went too far. http://mediamatters.org/items/200704090011 FOX NEWS MORE CONSERVATIVE RADIO SHOW: Not a conservative show rather than his liberal show. Even Fox knows he has right leanings. This is evidence that he is a political smorgasborg. The other reference I posted from a left pub stated that he is a closet Republican. Face it, he uses politics as a device to make money. An argument can be made that he is a hard core right, moderate, or hard core left. He's just a political mess.

Where do you put his personal political preferences to be? Left, right, indep?

I don't believe I am and no one has come forward with anything that makes him a Dem. Again, he loves McCain, Dems hate McCain. Hell, even moderate R's don't klike McCain, just go look at teh polls. It doesn't make him liberal to think LImbaugh is POS. Many R's think he's a POS. If you say that makes him a Dem, then you reinforce my contention that R's are heartless assholes. I don;t think raising money for kids makes a person a Dem. I WOULD LOVE TO IF YOU POSTED ONE Thank you, that is my point, he's not a Dem, perhaps an independent or a moderate R. Again, that is one blurb saying which parties might be effected indiectly. To assess a person's political heading you must undestand their ideologies and which politicians they vote for. Who are these people? Furthermore, that still doesn't establish that he's a Dem and you still haven't addressed teh issue of McCAain and Imus' hate for Clinton and Gore. Using peripheral opinions of scattered people to issue their personal opinions of what it might mean is ridiculous. Why not deine what his oipinions are and who he adores rather than some distant unknown pundit? Oh, I know, you can't.

Based on what? You've never listened to him. All you have to go on is a silly self reinforcing tautology, and nothing more. He is partisan, he is a Democrat. Right, he loves warmonger McCain, slams CLinton and calls Gore, evil, but he's a Dem..... RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. And think Reagan was perhaps the worst pres ever, this piece opf crap is a Nazi and the general Republican voting public are either heartless or naive, yet I'm a Replican.... RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. Actually I am a registered R, just haven't changed it. SO instead of your so worthy opinion, show me an article or two that describes his positions. Let me guess, won't happen.

Nah, but I could help you out with your grammar. His grammar, I thought we were talking about his mama

You're a hoot, I doubt you actually heard him except through 3rd parth edited accounts. He's actually a Democrat, and the Democrats lose one of their few radio platforms with his sacking, several Democratic candidates had announced their candidacy on his show for obvious reasons. John McCain was one of the few "republican" regulars on his show. Hoot back at ya. My research yeilded what I thought, he's a closet conservative. Perhaps it's teh ole Repub, "all with us or you're against us." ___________________________________________________________________ The Wisdom of Don Imus May 12, 2001 by Bradford Shaw As repulsive as it may sound to liberal or progressive people familiar with the political attitude of Don Imus, he may have been partially correct with his assessment of our election choices last year. Imus, who hosts a popular radio show on WFAN radio as well as the simulcast on MSNBC cable, has been known for many years as a closet conservative. His often-nightly on-air love affair with John McCain during the primaries last year was difficult for some Democrats to sit through to say the least. He would call McCain, or vice-versa, and exchange right wing, anti-Clinton opinions, pausing only to play his homemade song parodies, skewering Clinton and Gore at will. In addition his often heard rant against Al Gore seemed disingenuous and deliberately vague. He would call Gore an evil person, a skunk, and other phrases that seem tailor-made both for morning radio, and for old, scruffy cowboy wannabe's like Imus, and yet he offered no concrete facts to back up his ire. It almost seemed that he was trying to appear hip to his staff, which were backing McCain. The staff of the Don Imus Show had a field day last year making fun of Democrats. They jumped at every opportunity to make Clinton or Gore look as bad as humanly possible. Charles McCord, who attempts to read the news without having his own conservative, right-to-life attitude pop through, actually did his best to stay above the fray as Bernard McGuirk and Lou Rufino sank again and again into the sea of Clinton-Gore bashing. A typical show last year would begin with Don mentioning something in the news that he thought was interesting as it related to the ongoing political process. In the midst of his quirky observations, Bernard would chime in some bit of vitriol about the Clinton family or Al Gore, not bothering to check the facts of his statement or even the legality in some instances. Don would then chide Bernard for his mean spiritedness, while still managing to quietly agree with him. Then, after a quick break provided by a lame musical parody authored by Rob Bartlett and or Larry Kenney (possibly the worst impressionist known to mankind, it's generally a good idea to listen carefully to Don's introduction of the character, or you won't have the vaguest idea of who Kenney is trying to impersonate), they would end that segment and, after seven or eight commercials, they would either resume the Democrat bashing, or introduce a guest who would continue the bashing. This staff was, and still is, anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, and pro-business. Imus surrounded himself with these people, and as a result, was influenced into following the same political ideology that was filling his day-to-day working environment. As I stated earlier, it was difficult for a sensitive Democrat to witness. The old adage, 'Know thine enemy!' is of course true, so I, as a strong Democrat, continued to watch and listen in order to form an intelligent opinion of Imus and his staff. Every dog has it's day, they say, and John McCain's flag was flying high for a little while, until George W's machine rolled over him with it's well financed series of unfounded attacks. McCain fell out of the race, Imus fell off his horse, and the process lurched forward. After that, when Don seemed to be in the doldrums of a man who backed a failed candidate, he made a wrong decision based on a right assumption. His wrong decision was to back George Bush. His right assumption, however, still is true. He stated, after McCain's defeat, that he would back Bush simply because W was a gold mine for future comedic material. This choice of candidate based on what some might call "The Idiocy Quotient" seemed off based and somewhat self-serving at the time. After all, Don Imus, however misled, does indeed hold some influence with his many fans throughout the country, and he wouldn't sacrifice the future of this country just for the sake of acquiring a never-ending source of White House humor. Or would he? Nonetheless, after witnessing the first one hundred days of the administration put in place by people such as the "I-Man", we find that Imus was indeed correct. His assumption that Bush would be a blunderer in the league of Dan Quayle, was insightful, intelligent, and tragically true. All one has to do in order to prove that the theory proposed by Imus was and is correct, is to turn on any late night television talk show. From Politically Incorrect, to The Tonight Show, to Late Night or the Letterman show, you can find a plethora of Bush jokes and routines, and it's not a rare occurrence, it's happening every night. The airwaves are inundated with conservative skewering and bashing of the Republican administration, the likes we haven't seen since the Nixon era. Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, Bill Maher, Conan O'Brien, and Jon Stewart are constantly filling most of their monologue time with acerbic and often accurate observations of the day-to-day bumbling of the business model that is the Bush Administration. Comedians and writers are finding it easier to farm jokes and routines from the Resident-In-Chief, than OJ, The Royal Family, or even Bill Clinton's penis. With the OJ case, comedians risked offending people of color who had a hard time seeing a lifelong hero's image fall to pieces. It was just too unpredictable a subject to be able to expect consistent results. With the Royal family, humorists had a hard time getting the public exited into frenzy on this side of the Atlantic. Often they would have to reacquaint the audience with which family member were who, and just what the current scandal was. It was just too time consuming and wordy for some American venues. With Bill Clinton's penis, comedians and writers would not only risk offending the large percentage of people who voted for Clinton twice, but they would risk the outward appearance of being un-hip and pro-establishment. How many successful un-hip and pro-establishment comedians and writers have emerged from the entertainment field in past history? The list is small, if at all. With Bush, his own stupidity as it relates to the act of communication alone is worth several years of parody and laughter. In addition, Bush himself seems to be going along with the program by providing new examples of his lack of command over the English language with every new speech or interview granted since his selection last year. So hidden amongst the piles of dusty, out-moded and time worn opinions and routines seen and or heard on the 'Imus in the Morning' program was an actual truth. Even the most dedicated of Gore haters would have to agree that he was, and is a better speaker. Al Gore is familiar with and fluent in the English language, to the point of being one of the most feared debaters going into last year's election process. His familiarity with the international scene and his own political savvy were demonstrated on Imus' own show when, during a phone appearance, he recited the names of several leaders of nations that the average American has little knowledge of, with humor and self depreciation. Would Al Gore have provided the nation with material for comedy in such a rapid pace as Bush? The answer is obviously no, in that Gore wouldn't open the door for jokes regarding his environmental stand, in that it would be consistent with the pro-environmental policy put in place by the Clinton Administration. Al Gore would no doubt be a fuddy-duddy where political humor was concerned. His comedic contribution during 'The Al Gore Years' would have been related to his stuffiness in office, and looseness at home. He is a solid guy, a great leader, and very boring where controversy and confrontation are concerned. This simply pales in comparison to the Texas Talk Twister. His occupation of the White House has been manna from heaven for jokesters and stand up comedians. Most comedy writers would acknowledge that when Bill Clinton left office, they were almost afraid of a Gore Administration. With the President well informed, articulate, and reasonable in his decision-making and policy setting, satire could possibly become an endangered species. Thus, an Al Gore Whitehouse could set comedy back to it's political infancy, a future not well received by people who make their daily bread by finding humor in the behavior and attitude of our leaders in Washington. The comedy community could ill afford four years of intelligence and understanding in the executive branch. It occasionally needs a Dan Quayle, a Spiro Agnew, and yes, perhaps a George Bush to reap unbounded comedic treasures. In this one area of politics, it is undeniable that Bush beats Gore. There was never a doubt that lil Shrub, with his lack of political and intellectual sophistication could run circles around Al Gore in the "providing unintentional comedy material by public blunder" department. It is a new comedy renaissance out there in entertainment land, and we can acknowledge the fact that Don Imus saw this satirical paradigm approaching many months ago. Though his show is undeniably offensive on a day-to-day basis for many even-tempered and tolerant Americans, a final conclusion can be drawn. The I-Man, though thoroughly unlistenable most of the time, was right. Once. ____________________________________________________________________ So he is a moderate conservative, unless you're a right wing, "all with us or all against us" conservative, then e's flaming left, as that's all there is, far left or far right, no middle. Truth about Imus is that he's moderate right, I would say.

You're a hoot, I doubt you actually heard him except through 3rd parth edited accounts. He's actually a Democrat, and the Democrats lose one of their few radio platforms with his sacking, several Democratic candidates had announced their candidacy on his show for obvious reasons. John McCain was one of the few "republican" regulars on his show. Yea, never listened to him. I will research it, but if he is partisan, he seems conservative. His apology was weak and he essentially rescinded it as he laid it out.

Never listened to him, but I can see by his reaction that he is conservo maggot. He basically apologized as he claimed teh whole thing was BS.

No shit. I don't care for Imus, but firing him at the whim of Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson makes no sense to me. The only people he owed an apology to were the college girls he insulted. As soon as he kissed the Reverands' collective assess, he signed his own death certificate. What's more distressing is that Jackson and Sharpton are reinforcing their agenda and they will be going after others they don't agree with, and lobbying to reintroduce the "Fairness" legislation in Congress. What pissed me off was when Al Roker asked Spike Lee about all the comedians and rappers saying far worse along racial and gender lines, from Eminem to all teh balck rappers, yet they don't get criticized. Spike Leee said that was a different subject. Bullshit. As much as Imus is a tired old conservative redneck, what abouteveryone else. I think firing was the right move, but let's get going on the rtest of teh garbage too..... that's essentially what Jim Rome, sports comentator said.... I totally agree.

Here's for the war-mongers: Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. — James Madison, Political Observations, 1795 Look at the history of debt, it rose during the civil war, WWI, WWII and esp VNam. Madison was a genius b4 his time. Too bad the neo-con presidents are too greedy or too stupid to understand this. http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp See, whe fascist Reagan left office it declined until the chimp took over. The USA, responsible for about 80 per cent of the increase in 2005, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for almost half of the world total; The USA is responsible for 48 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4–5 per cent each.