Ingraham said: "The media is unfair, the poor don't pay taxes, the liberals have taken over U.S. higher education, etc."

1) As a radio talk show host, Laura appears regularly on Fox news, she's a big part of the 'unfair' media. I have to admit that I agree with her on this one: she's certainly unfair.

2) That may very well be true that the poor don't pay taxes. However nothing is stopping her from quitting her job, donating all her assets to a charity, and become one of the poor. That way she wouldn't have to pay any taxes either.

3) About the liberals taking over higher education. I doubt that any of the faculty at the Religious universities (Liberty, etc) would agree with being labeled liberals. How about Glen Reynolds from Instapundit, with his law professor status; how would he feel about being labeled liberal?

It's interesting how they sure enjoy projecting their own misery.

Factual evidence has shown that the vast majority of deranged people who commit these heinous crimes tend to follow a right wing ideology.

Granted it is a deranged form of right wing philosophy, but right wing none the less.

The typical Republican response of "nobody could have seen that coming" will not work.

At some point they will have to confront this issue themselves. The longer they ignore it, excuse it, or use false equivalencies, the more self-evident it will become that their core believes have become disgusting.

Contrary to the true believer's insights, extreme right wing beliefs, will 'never' be acceptable to mainstream Americans. Just as extreme left wing beliefs, will 'never' be acceptable to mainstream Americans either.

Sarah Palin did not convince mainstream Americans that she was on equal footing with Hillary Clinton. Fundamental Christian Evangelicals have not convinced mainstream Americans that their way of life is preferable to freedom of choice. Pundits on the right tried to convince mainstream America not to vote for Obama and that the Bush doctrine was the safest way to go, but that didn't work out either.

Now Pundits on the right (you all know the names) are trying to convince us that what they are saying has nothing to do with this deranged person's actions.

Do they honestly think anybody is going to believe them? Sure there are the likes of awesome-o and his contemporaries who will believe anything they say, until they tell them something else. of course.

Sorry if someone posed that question earlier: Shouldn't this rule change for mark-to-market be retroactive?

Didn't those financial wizards base their huge bonuses on 'mark-to-market' rules? I mean they based their very own bonuses on grossly over estimated values of homes.

It's kind'a hard to swallow, that they can have it both ways. first they rake in the millions by overvaluing - without complaining about that rule. Now they can reduce their losses, by changing the rule, so they can overvalue the assets, once again.

something is wrong with this picture. I think someone in Congress needs to raise the question and ask for those bonuses to be re-evaluated on the new rules as well, instead of exaggerated prices.

I don't understand why people keep referring to Rush as being dumb, a fool, etc...

Even if you don't agree with his ideology, or if you don't like what he stands for, I don't think he's dumb.

Sure he plays his followers, not unlike any cult leader, but that doesn't mean he's a fool.

A while ago, he signed a contract for $400,000,000.00 which breaks down to roughly $1 million dollars a week.

Sure there is something wrong when his listeners don't comprehend that Rush has not been 'one of them' for a few decades now. Rush is just milking it for as long as he can.

The stock market is also hurting Clear Channel. Clear Channel has laid over quite a few employees. Advertising revenue is down.

I wonder if anybody on the board of Clear Channel has the nerve to walk up to Rush and ask if he'd be willing to take a little pay cut in order for the radio stations to stay solvent?

That would be an interesting discussion. Maybe someone in the media could pose that question to him; instead of trembling in his presence.

All good things come to an end. I don't think Rush has that much longer to go. Yes, 'good' is relative in this case.

I'd say that Joan does not need to worry about talking about Limbaugh's physical appearance and past behavior.

Usually it's Republicans who are obsessed about appearances; remember some of the following instances:

Hillary's cleavage - Edwards' hairdo - skinny Obama - Sarah "Palin is someone I'd like to bed with (Deutch)" - "Palin winked at me" - "When I saw Sarah, I sat up a little straighter" - "You can land a jumbo jet on his shoulders" - Edwards is effeminate - etc...

... and those are the nicer ones, there are ample examples of derogatory comments directed towards Democrats from the Republican camp.

It's funny how they don't like their appearance to be questioned, yet it's OK for them to do it anytime they see fit.