I knew that sooner or later I would be in 100% lockstep agreement with Limbaugh on something.

Bob wrote:I loathe that son of a bitch. So what I'm gonna say now would be like if Brother Carl Gallups heard Satan say something and then responds with "man, old Satan sure did get that one right".

I happened to be in my car when Limbaugh's show went on the air earlier.
And when he played a recording of Wolf Blitzer on Blitzer's CNN show yesterday and I heard Blitzer turn to his interview guest and ask this with a completely straight face...

"Do you think Rubio's drink of water can make or break his political career?"...

...Limbaugh's reaction to that was dead on right. 110% percent no question about it right. And I don't even have to tell how he would react to that.

But I'll give you my own response. If Obama had delivered the rebuttal to a SOTU address, and during that rebuttal Obama was seen taking a drink of water, and Fox News had asked a guest the same question Blitzer asked his guest; Sal and wordslinger and dreamglore and all the rest of that persuasion here would be having a conipshun fit that would even make an Alex Jones meltdown look mild.

The fact that ANYBODY has been given national television time to waste on shit like that is the definite evidence that what I've been trying to tell you is right. Cable television "news" is not news and it's not even legitimate commentary. It's just a load of valueless shlock with commercials in it.

Bob wrote:I loathe that son of a bitch. So what I'm gonna say now would be like if Brother Carl Gallups heard Satan say something and then responds with "man, old Satan sure did get that one right".

I happened to be in my car when Limbaugh's show went on the air earlier.
And when he played a recording of Wolf Blitzer on Blitzer's CNN show yesterday and I heard Blitzer turn to his interview guest and ask this with a completely straight face...

"Do you think Rubio's drink of water can make or break his political career?"...

...Limbaugh's reaction to that was dead on right. 110% percent no question about it right. And I don't even have to tell how he would react to that.

But I'll give you my own response. If Obama had delivered the rebuttal to a SOTU address, and during that rebuttal Obama was seen taking a drink of water, and Fox News had asked a guest the same question Blitzer asked his guest; Sal and wordslinger and dreamglore and all the rest of that persuasion here would be having a conipshun fit that would even make an Alex Jones meltdown look mild.

The fact that ANYBODY has been given national television time to waste on shit like that is the definite evidence that what I've been trying to tell you is right. Cable television "news" (along with the sorry excuses for talent who populate it) is not news and it's not even legitimate commentary. It's just a load of valueless shlock with commercials in it.

Sal wrote:

Bob wrote:I loathe that son of a bitch. So what I'm gonna say now would be like if Brother Carl Gallups heard Satan say something and then responds with "man, old Satan sure did get that one right".

I happened to be in my car when Limbaugh's show went on the air earlier.
And when he played a recording of Wolf Blitzer on Blitzer's CNN show yesterday and I heard Blitzer turn to his interview guest and ask this with a completely straight face...

"Do you think Rubio's drink of water can make or break his political career?"...

...Limbaugh's reaction to that was dead on right. 110% percent no question about it right. And I don't even have to tell how he would react to that.

But I'll give you my own response. If Obama had delivered the rebuttal to a SOTU address, and during that rebuttal Obama was seen taking a drink of water, and Fox News had asked a guest the same question Blitzer asked his guest; Sal and wordslinger and dreamglore and all the rest of that persuasion here would be having a conipshun fit that would even make an Alex Jones meltdown look mild.

The fact that ANYBODY has been given national television time to waste on shit like that is the definite evidence that what I've been trying to tell you is right. Cable television "news" (along with the sorry excuses for talent who populate it) is not news and it's not even legitimate commentary. It's just a load of valueless shlock with commercials in it.

I've already said on here that Rubio's water break was just something funny and awkward to talk about in the middle of an otherwise nothing-burger of a speech.

If the same thing happened to Obama, and FAUX News suggested it could ruin his career, I'd LMAO @them.

Bob wrote:Regardless of which political partisanship is at issue because this will apply to either, the hoopla over something like this is revealing of something more significant to me.
It's how we now seem to have such a need for these people to be so polished and polished in such an artificial almost robotic way. We don't even value any display of human foibles or human frailties anymore. They all have to be actors with scripts written for them and with what
has been defined as an acceptable demeanor and look about them with acceptable manner of speech and all the rest that goes with it.
It's all now just some perverted version of what "show business" has given us.

It's something to think about that an Abraham Lincoln, with his weird look and weird dress and weird way of speaking (which is also well documented now) even for his time, could not possibly ever even be considered "presidential" in today's world.
And so when we see someone take a drink of water, that's just not something we can tolerate seeing him do on camera. It doesn't fit the strict regimen of what we're SUPPOSED to be seeing. And show business has defined for us what we're supposed to be seeing.
As Orson Welles said so well, "I've known politicians and I've known actors and politicians are actors". And since actors are not supposed to be seen taking a drink of water in a movie scene, now they aren't supposed to be seen doing that when delivering a political "performance" either.

Sal wrote:

Well if any of that's true, and I'm not acknowledging it is, it's been going on for a long, long time.

If Rubio's performance is reminiscent of anything, it is Nixon's televised debate with JFK.

It's not just the awkward water break, he was also sweating profusely, he kept smacking his lips, the lighting was terrible, and to say the speech was boilerplate would be too kind.

You can keep crying about how the media is blowing this up, but they're actually doing the Republicans a favor.

If they were actually doing a thorough examination of the substance of the speech, the GOP would really be fucked.

Sal wrote:

Well if any of that's true, and I'm not acknowledging it is, it's been going on for a long, long time.

If Rubio's performance is reminiscent of anything, it is Nixon's televised debate with JFK.

It's not just the awkward water break, he was also sweating profusely, he kept smacking his lips, the lighting was terrible, and to say the speech was boilerplate would be too kind.

You can keep crying about how the media is blowing this up, but they're actually doing the Republicans a favor.

If they were actually doing a thorough examination of the substance of (or better lack thereof) the speech, the GOP would really be fucked.

Bob wrote:

Sal wrote:

Well if any of that's true, and I'm not acknowledging it is, it's been going on for a long, long time.

If Rubio's performance is reminiscent of anything, it is Nixon's televised debate with JFK.

It's not just the awkward water break, he was also sweating profusely, he kept smacking his lips, the lighting was terrible, and to say the speech was boilerplate would be too kind.

You can keep crying about how the media is blowing this up, but they're actually doing the Republicans a favor.

If they were actually doing a thorough examination of the substance of the speech, the GOP would really be fucked.

You know it's so funny you take that position on Rubio and his speech. The same position most all the democrat pundits and politicos have taken. But one is now cautioning the rest not to dismiss Rubio like you/they are doing.
And it's WHO it is who is doing the cautioning that carries weight. A person who was one of Obama's closest advisors...

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rubio-obama-state-union/2013/02/13/id/490276

But, aside from that, for you to equate Nixon vs Kennedy with Rubio vs Obama is truly the most wrong-headed and ridiculous statement you've ever made, Sal. In no way no how can Rubio be equated with Richard Nixon. With all due respect, that's just a really dumb thing to say. Especially coming from someone who is as obviously as smart as you are.
That reveals your blind devotion to obama and democrats is almost at the cult stage. lol

PACEDOG#1 wrote:The left is so scared of Rubio that they will do anything to discredit him.

Sal wrote:
Well if any of that's true, and I'm not acknowledging it is, it's been going on for a long, long time.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:The left is so scared of Rubio that they will do anything to discredit him.

boards of FL wrote:

Looks like Rubio will be receiving Palin's hand-me-down talking points.

Bob wrote:

Sal wrote:
Well if any of that's true, and I'm not acknowledging it is, it's been going on for a long, long time.

When I say "today's world" I don't mean like literally Valentines Day, 2013, Sal. lol
And I can pinpoint it down a lot better than "for a long long time".
The era I'm talking about began with the widespread availability of television.
And you can pin that down to about 1960 (with a margin of error).
That was the starting point. And then over time, as the medium continued to grow in power, so did it's influence on our politics. As did it's influence on most everything in our society.

Nekochan wrote:Rubio is no Palin. Totally different backgrounds. And I think Rubio appeals to a wider audience than Palin.

The points about the awkward water moment and his sweating have some merit. It was not his greatest performance. But Bob is right, some media are blowing it way out of proportion and as far is it being a disaster for his political career--most Americans are not even thinking yet about who will run in 2016.

Sal wrote:

Bob wrote:

Sal wrote:
Well if any of that's true, and I'm not acknowledging it is, it's been going on for a long, long time.

When I say "today's world" I don't mean like literally Valentines Day, 2013, Sal. lol
And I can pinpoint it down a lot better than "for a long long time".
The era I'm talking about began with the widespread availability of television.
And you can pin that down to about 1960 (with a margin of error).
That was the starting point. And then over time, as the medium continued to grow in power, so did it's influence on our politics. As did it's influence on most everything in our society.

When you say today's world, you mean 1960??

Ummm, ... O.K. I guess.

But worrying about appearance obviously goes back even further than that.

FDR couldn't be seen in a wheelchair.

Appearances matter, but I think your inflating its importance and making it seem like a new phenomena.

I know they didn't win, but if appearance was the ONLY thing that mattered, Ross Perot and Ron Paul never woulda got a second look.

Whatever happened to Ross Perot?

Is he still around?

PACEDOG#1 wrote:The left is so scared of Rubio that they will do anything to discredit him.

Bob wrote:Here's some irony for you, Sal. You and me (and everyone else here) consist of nothing but those "written words". Same as the "old era" form of communication.
If instead of being written words, you and me were "talking heads" on a television screen, I can promise you that we would be received and perceived in an entirely different way. And so would our ideas.
Right now we and our ideas, are judged only with those written words.
But if we became talking heads that would all change. We and our ideas both would be judged on our looks, our grooming, our dress, our speaking ability, and a host of other things that are not applicable when all we are is written words.

I have no doubt that one day technology will advance to make this form of communication we do here include our "talking heads". All of the technology to accomplish that is already known. It really would be nothing more than an advance in the technology which has already given us "skype".
It will be interesting to see how many of us in this situation will choose to make use of that when it becomes available.
My guess is not very many. The evidence of that is the infestimal number of us who are even willing to make our photo the avatar. We like living in the "old era" of communication. We're hiding in it the same way FDR was able to do. lol

Bob wrote:I loathe that son of a bitch. So what I'm gonna say now would be like if Brother Carl Gallups heard Satan say something and then responds with "man, old Satan sure did get that one right".

I happened to be in my car when Limbaugh's show went on the air earlier.
And when he played a recording of Wolf Blitzer on Blitzer's CNN show yesterday and I heard Blitzer turn to his interview guest and ask this with a completely straight face...

"Do you think Rubio's drink of water can make or break his political career?"...

...Limbaugh's reaction to that was dead on right. 110% percent no question about it right. And I don't even have to tell how he would react to that.

But I'll give you my own response. If Obama had delivered the rebuttal to a SOTU address, and during that rebuttal Obama was seen taking a drink of water, and Fox News had asked a guest the same question Blitzer asked his guest; Sal and wordslinger and dreamglore and all the rest of that persuasion here would be having a conipshun fit that would even make an Alex Jones meltdown look mild.

The fact that ANYBODY has been given national television time to waste on shit like that is the definite evidence that what I've been trying to tell you is right. Cable television "news" (along with the sorry excuses for talent who populate it) is not news and it's not even legitimate commentary. It's just a load of valueless shlock with commercials in it.