Who should rule the world?

Or rather, what group of people should rule every country but the US? John Hawkins at Right Wing News took a poll of bloggers (including yours truly) and asked that question. We could mention up to 15 people. The final results of the poll are posted here.

22 Responses to "Who should rule the world?"

Baklava says:

October 25, 2005 at 9:40 pm

I’m very very happy with the list. Great answers.
Brian says:

October 25, 2005 at 11:56 pm

It’s very sad that anyone could choose someone as hateful and dishonest as Rush Limbaugh
Robert S. says:

October 26, 2005 at 12:04 am

It’s very sad that anyone could choose someone as hateful and dishonest as Rush Limbaugh

Or Anne Coulter, who recently confessed to her desire to limit free speech.

Glad to see that Vaclav Havel, a true “uniter,” made the list though.
Sister Toldjah says:

October 26, 2005 at 12:14 am

Oh please. Considering the love the left throws out there for the likes of Michael Moore, Al Franken, George Galloway, Cindy Sheehan, and Noam Chomsky, you guys cracks about the type of people the right supports are glaring examples of the pot calling the kettle black.
Robert S. says:

October 26, 2005 at 12:28 am

you guys cracks about the type of people the right supports are glaring examples of the pot calling the kettle black.

That opinion presumes an awful lot about osmeone you don’t even know.

Doesn’t take a far left winger to recognize Coulter’s a hatemonger.

And I for one certainly wouldn’t hold Galloway in anything approaching high esteem. Chomsky: I’d look for a balanced counterargument for anything he says. Moore is a propagandist. Cindy Sheehan? She’s a grieving woman whose son is dead. Doesn’t matter how it happened. He’s dead. And I think it’d do well for right wingers who don’t like what she’s doing to simply ignore her.

Oh: and the old “pot calling the kettle black” argument. That’s just an evasion tactic, which hopes to ignore the truth of the criticism. The truth: there are jackasses on both sides of the political spectrum and people should feel quite free to call them on their jackassery.

Cheers.
Sister Toldjah says:

October 26, 2005 at 7:31 am

“That opinion presumes an awful lot about osmeone you don’t even know”

Kind of like yours does.

“Oh: and the old “pot calling the kettle black” argument. That’s just an evasion tactic, which hopes to ignore the truth of the criticism.”

That’s not true. It was just giving you a taste of your own medicine that you didn’t like. You’re right, there are jerks on both sides of the aisle, but I didn’t exactly see you in any kind of rush to point out examples of such on the left side of the aisle. Both yours and Brian’s implication seemed to be that the left was somehow free from having less than savory characters on their little internal lists of favorites. It’s not a ‘tactic’ to point out otherwise.
PCD says:

October 26, 2005 at 8:15 am

Oh, Let’s see, Al Franken physically attacks people from behind, but Brian and the lefties lionize him. Bill Clinton rapes women and sexually harasses them, yet the majority of the Democrat party and the MSM consider him an untouchable saint. Shall I go on about the killer from Massachusetts?

You lefties are real hypocrites, but that seems to be a basic requirement to be a leftie in good standing.
Kevin says:

October 26, 2005 at 9:19 am

Nice picks! Thomas Sowell, John Howard, and Margaret Thatcher are my favorites. A reincarnated Ronal Reagan would be nice as well

Ann Coulter would be better as president of the US imo. She could make jokes about repealing the first amendment, and watch the liberals whine as if she was serious. And while they complained about this joke or that, or talked about how non pc she was, she’d be ramming conservatism through the government. Think how great it would be!
Brian says:

October 26, 2005 at 11:31 pm

Sister Toldjah,

Why are you making the assumption that I support any of the people you mentioned? What do any of these people you mentioned have to do with Rush Limbaugh or the topic? I was commenting on the article you posted. There are right-wing bloggers that are willing to support someone as dishonest and hateful as Rush Limbaugh. I would never support anyone like that on the right or left. When you condemned Howard Dean’s comments about Republicans, I did not respond because I thought his comments were indefensible. Do you think Rush Limbaugh’s lies and hateful statements are acceptable?

While I don’t agree with everything Cindy Sheehan says, I do find it despicable the way some people on the right have gone after a woman who lost her son fighting for this country, especially those who never served. It’s not enough for them to disagree with her views, they need to go after the person. At least Senator George Allen can respect what she is going through.
LINK
Kevin says:

October 27, 2005 at 7:58 am

I did not know Rush was dishonest and hateful. Could you put up some links so I can learn?

ty in advance.
PCD says:

October 27, 2005 at 8:48 am

Brian, Cindy Sheehan disrespects her adult son preferring a fantasy her sick mind has concocted of him.

Brian, try being a little honest. I know it is hard for Liberals to admit they are wrong and that Rush is right.
Kevin says:

October 27, 2005 at 1:46 pm

I’m still lookin forward to seeing the links to where Rush is “dishonest and hateful”. Any insight on when the ETA for that is?
Brian says:

October 27, 2005 at 10:00 pm

Kevin,

Here are a few site’s documenting Rush Limbaugh’s lies and promoting hate:

This page list a number of Rush’s lies, distortions, and inaccuracies:
LINK

Here’s a page documenting some racist comments made by Rush:
LINK

This one is particularly appalling, where Rush tells our troops in Afghanistan that the left wants more troops to die and they’re mad at doctors saving lives. This is based on an article in Reuters magazine where Rush completely distorts what the article says. The article made no mention of anything that Rush attributed to it.
LINK

Here’s some slander of liberals portraying them as anti-American and not willing to defend our country. There have been many liberals that have served in the military and fought in wars, something Rush Limbaugh never did.
LINK

Here’s another page documenting Rush Limbaugh slandering liberals:
LINK

If you do some searches, there are probably hundreds more. It’s very sad that there are people who look up to someone who is so dishonest and hateful.
Sister Toldjah says:

October 27, 2005 at 10:14 pm

Please get off of your moral high horse, Brian. The man you promote here the most (Clinton) was no white knight himself. Why are you trying to make it sound like your principles are higher than everyone else’s here? Do you think the politians/pundits you like are above reproach? I should also add that your sources are questionable, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Baklava says:

October 28, 2005 at 3:57 am

He no understan’ economics. Thinks Bill is a saint for the way the economy ran (which in turn lowers unemployment and brings higher revenues into the government).

It would be funny if Brian wasn’t so serious. 😐
PCD says:

October 28, 2005 at 8:11 am

Brian,

here’s a link showing your side, your fellow travellers celebrating the 2,000th US military death in Iraq.

http://www.zombietime.com/2000_iraq_deaths_party

Brian, if you hate America so much, why don’t you go to a people’s paradise like Cuba and stay there?
PCD says:

October 28, 2005 at 8:13 am

Oh, Brian, for the record, FAIR and Media Matters are long discredited propaganda organs of the left and George Soros in particular.
Kevin says:

October 28, 2005 at 5:00 pm

Brian,

The racial remarks are unacceptable if shown in context. I listen to him a couple of times a week when I’m on the road, and have never heard him be a racist before (unless ‘Democrat’ is a race.

Your first link does indeed show a good number of mistakes that Rush has made. Although to be fair, I would say that Rush is right in close to half of them, and the corrections made by Fair.org turn out to be the false or misleading ones (the canadian healthcare statement seems a good example). Regardless, nothing hateful or dishonest here, just some mistakes. Journalists make them all the time. Pundits too I guess.

The links to ‘slandering’ liberals… Both of those links are good examples of why conservatives like him He’s not hateful, he’s honest. Often when you hear the way some on the left really think, it just sounds hateful (Cindy Sheehan calling the Insurgency ‘freedom fighters’ is a good example of this).

Lastly, you link to Rush saying that some people on the left want higher fatalities to make the war look bad. And he is exactly right! Did you read the Reuters article (link is at the bottom of the page you linked with)? That is exactly what it is implying. The low death rate is because of our fantastic medical staff. And somehow, that’s not ‘fair’, and the death toll should in some way be raised to reflect the true intensity of the battles. WTF!?!

I’m going to look into this racism stuff a little more to see how accurate those statements are. Actually, I’m gonna drop them an email and see if they have responded to the charges yet. They are the only things I have a problem with in all your links. I’ll put his response here if he or his staff responds. I hope they turn out to be false, as I consider him to be a great man, and partially responsible for our Republican majority in the House.
Kevin says:

October 28, 2005 at 5:11 pm

Darn, I can’t figure out how to contact Rush But Fair.org printed Limbaugh’s rebuttal here. It’s an interesting fisking of a fisk It looks like a lot more than half of FAIR’s allegations were false.

Still working on the racist stuff. Is Rush looking better to you yet Brian?
Brian says:

October 29, 2005 at 2:19 am

Hi Kevin,

I read through Rush’s responses on the page you linked to. Rush still isn’t looking any better to me. Some of Rush’s responses you can tell are not accurate just by reading them carefully

In Rush’s response regarding forest acreage, he only shows statistics from the 1900’s to show how much Forestry expanded over the last 80 years. In Rush’s original statement he was comparing forest acreage today with acreage in the 1700’s. Rush’s answer had nothing to do with how much forest acreage there is today vs. how much there was in the late 1700’s.

In Rush’s original statement on condoms, he compared using condoms to getting on a plane where you knew one in five passengers would die. Then Rush responds to FAIR with some statistics on condom failure rates. Regardless of whether or not Rush’s statistics on condoms are correct (according to the CDC they’re not), even if a condom fails, it does not mean you are going to die.

FAIR did a good job of rebutting most of Rush’s responses here: LINK

I did read the Reuters article. Nowhere in the article does it say the death toll should be raised or “that’s not fair” that our medical staff has saved so many lives. The article is saying that the intensity of the conflict in Iraq should not just be measured by combat deaths but also by the number of seriously wounded. Nowhere in the article does it say that it’s a bad thing that more wounded soldiers are being saved. Rush is putting meaning into the article that isn’t there. If you disagree, please show me a specific sentence in the article that says it’s a bad thing that more soldiers are being saved.

Regarding, Cindy Sheehan, calling insurgents freedom fighters is not the same as saying she wants more American soldiers to die. I think referring to insurgents as “freedom fighters” was stupid but I don’t see that as wanting soldiers to die. Her position has always been that she wants American soldiers to come home because she doesn’t want more soldiers to die. My impression is that she thinks if American troops left Iraq, the fighting would stop. Rush Limbaugh’s statement wasn’t even based on what Cindy Sheehan or anyone else said. He was basing his comments on what was printed in the Reuters article. Rush put meaning into the article that wasn’t there. The article says that more severely wounded soldiers are being saved today than ever before. Nowhere does it say that this is a bad thing.

Rush’s statement that liberals would have sought out bin Laden and tried to make a deal with him is an outright lie. After we were attacked on 9/11, Congress and the nation overwhelmingly supported going to war against Afghanistan. I don’t know of a single congressman that was opposed to attacking Afghanistan. No Democratic President has ever sought out terrorists or tried to make deals with them. The only American President that has ever made deals with terrorists is Ronald Reagan, who I would not consider to be a liberal.

I haven’t researched the accuracy of all of the statements attributed to Rush in the links I posted. Since Rush took the time to respond to FAIR’s statements, they must have accurately recorded what Rush said and wrote, otherwise Rush would have denied saying it rather than writing a response. Media Matters provides audio clips with the original comments. The following page has an audio clip where Rush says liberals would seek out bin laden to make a deal with him: LINK

Let me know if you get any response from Rush regarding the racist statements on the FAIR page.
Kevin says:

October 29, 2005 at 10:40 am

No, I am out of ideas on how to get a response for the racial remarks. I’m still hoping they were just standard faux pas’ brought on by having your conversation recorded 3 hrs a day 5 days a week for 15 years (30 if you count his remark in the 70’s). God knows I’ve said worse stuff in my time. I in no way support the statements though.

The audio link you provided didn’t work on my computer, but I assume it said this:

LIMBAUGH: If it were up to you people, we wouldn’t exist as a country today. You would have given in to the Soviets long ago, you would have appeased the Soviet communists. You would appease Iran right now. You probably wouldn’t have cared about the war on terror or the bombing on 9-11. You would have sought out bin Laden and tried to make a deal with him, and this country exists today only because we have been able to prevent you from gaining power to do that kind of thing. We’ve had our run-ins with Neville Chamberlain types, and you’re the modern incarnation.

Is this mean? Kinda. Is this true? Yes. Maybe we would still exist as a country, but the moveon.org type liberals would certainly go to the table with Bin Laden right now to get us out of the wars. The Cindy Sheehan types don’t even want to negotiate with him, they want us to leave him alone and withdraw our troops from everywhere (ie. give Bin Laden the ‘win’).

It is unnecessary to continue this talk. Clearly neither of our opinions will be swayed. Most of what you consider hateful, I consider fact. Nevertheless, I respect your using facts or links to make your points Brian.
Brian says:

October 29, 2005 at 5:22 pm

Kevin,

It is necessary to continue this talk because you’re telling an outright lie. Nobody is calling for negotiations with bin laden and nobody is calling for the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan.

Comments are closed.