cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Advisor

conspiracy theory

As I've said many times, I remain fascinated with the election of '92 which still doesn't entirely make sense to me and, parenthetically, marked the point where the locals here around Hooterville really started leaving the rails.

 

GHWB is an interesting character. He was certainly a total Deep State company man and almost certainly knew more about the machinations before and during than the Pres himself did. Hard telling what his standing was among the serious Deep State bigwigs like Cap, Schultzie, O'Casey.

 

But anyway, there was actually some very good and judicious governance taking place during his presidency. One key thing was that he and Baker were the last US admin to really push Israel hard for a two state solution. And worth noting that the Clinton Administration never attempted anything other than some pretend multi-party negotiations.

 

Anyway, Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the RW revolt against GHWB. His listeners are among the most gullible human beings alive- all you have to do is appeal to their sense of resentment against somebody.

 

And of course, Rush had a weakness (as did Clinton, Hastert, any number I'm sure). My theory is that Rush's oxycontin dealer was a Mossad agent and thus controlled him through a combination of addiction and blackmail. And, of course he was rewarded with the career making Clinton years.

 

Unfortunately for GHWB's historical legacy his great mistake was the failure to have a vasectomy early in life.

13 Replies
Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: conspiracy theory

Rush wasn`t against Bush #41.  I`ve always been a Rush fan since about `89 when he was on WHO and there was a commercial every 2 minutes to fund his new program.  I am also a Ross Perot supporter, first presidential candidate I voted for was Perot.  And it was hard listening to Rush slam Perot everyday and talk up HW Bush...turned out perot was right about everything and Rush was wrong in slamming him, but what else is new?  

 

Perot got 20% of the vote and that`s universally agreed what lost Bush #41 the election.  I saw no evidence of Rush being anything less than a total stormtrooper for Bush #41.  There was a recession going on during the `92 election and we were just coming out of it, everyone was buying a computer and the start of the "tech bubble" was under way and that is what got Clinton elected (it`s the economy stupid) and clinton didn`t mess up the natural flow.  And of course is given credit for it and supposedly balancing the budget for 13 seconds in 1999, although the national debt rose plenty during Clinton`s 8 yr run.  

 

But no, if HW Bush favored a 2 state Israel, that isn`t what lost him the `92 election.

Highlighted
Advisor

Endorses Clinton 10/22/92

After a year of giving Bush backhanded support "we have to push him to the right" he folded and went all in. I'm thinking his handlers were holding back the pills and really had him strung out at that point.

 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/08/01/from_the_grooveyard_rush_endorses_clinton_in_1992_and_t...

 

"And if the mood of this country is not where I am right now, then I'm the one that's gonna have to change.  I have been challenged to have the courage to change, and so I have.  I am here to tell you that I, today, understand the mood of the majority of the people in this country.  I, ladies and gentlemen, um, here at 12 minutes after the hour on the 22nd of October, am here to tell you that I have decided to endorse the candidacy of Bill Clinton for president."

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: Endorses Clinton 10/22/92

But he got very rich.

 

As the Columbian drug lords say, "plomo o plata.", lead or silver,  your choice.

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Endorses Clinton 10/22/92

Smiley Very Happy  Oh geez Nox.  That is Rush`s humor, if you`ll remember the Clinton apologists during that campaign excused Clinton`s slipperiness by saying "Character doesn`t matter!  Just put money in mah wallet!" .   If you`ll read the end of Rush`s transcript that is exactly the point that he was making.  Rush calls this "exposing absurdity by being absurd"  it`s very effective in making fools of the liberals, but you do have to start out with a sense of humor.

 

I remember he used to "abort" stupid callers with a vacuum cleaner sound, that was priceless as well Smiley Very Happy

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: Endorses Clinton 10/22/92

BTW, the only major candidate who might not follow the neocon perscription for perpetual middle east war is the Jew.

 

Jewish Americans are about 50/50 on the question of a two state solution although understandably get a bit nervous when gentiles criticize Israel.

 

The old secular socialist Jews like Bernie or Krugman generally line up on the peace side. They're the most similar to the founders of the state but got rolled by the people behind the religious extremists.

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Endorses Clinton 10/22/92

Yes, but Bernie`s support of a "2-state" Israel isn`t what is going to loose him the election.  Not even on the radar of the average voter.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: conspiracy theory


@hardnox wrote:

As I've said many times, I remain fascinated with the election of '92 which still doesn't entirely make sense to me and, parenthetically, marked the point where the locals here around Hooterville really started leaving the rails.

 

GHWB is an interesting character. He was certainly a total Deep State company man and almost certainly knew more about the machinations before and during than the Pres himself did. Hard telling what his standing was among the serious Deep State bigwigs like Cap, Schultzie, O'Casey.

 

But anyway, there was actually some very good and judicious governance taking place during his presidency. One key thing was that he and Baker were the last US admin to really push Israel hard for a two state solution. And worth noting that the Clinton Administration never attempted anything other than some pretend multi-party negotiations.

 

Anyway, Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the RW revolt against GHWB. His listeners are among the most gullible human beings alive- all you have to do is appeal to their sense of resentment against somebody.

 

And of course, Rush had a weakness (as did Clinton, Hastert, any number I'm sure). My theory is that Rush's oxycontin dealer was a Mossad agent and thus controlled him through a combination of addiction and blackmail. And, of course he was rewarded with the career making Clinton years.

 

Unfortunately for GHWB's historical legacy his great mistake was the failure to have a vasectomy early in life.


 

 

The deep state in action.

 

 


Tanks lined up at fire.

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: conspiracy theory

I'm open to considering the theory that says that the OKC bombing was used to cover up various loose ends for the Bush/Clinton organized crime family (that possibly being one of them) and of course 9/11 would have been perfect for pretty much permanently burying 50 years' worth of dirty laundry.

 

Ollie ollie all in free and a brave new world.

 

A lonely subset of folks though, as some people are willing to accept one or the other for partisan reasons but few buyers for both.

 

 

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: Endorses Clinton 10/22/92

Trump getting a news coverage advantage of 81:1 might.

 

This is inside baseball stuff but there are questions whether Perot cost Bush the election or not.

 

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

 

But did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?