The Thing About Rush Limbaugh... [Archive]

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 10:18

Littlelebowski

03-02-09, 10:24

Yeah, plus his little prescription drug habit. Any alternatives people wish the party was using instead of him?

Rider79

03-02-09, 10:26

That's why I like Glenn Beck, he sticks it to both sides when they're not making sense. I agree with you completely on Hannity and Limbaugh, but my main problem with them in the past has been their lack of defense of the 2nd Amendment. While I don't pay attention to them as much as I watch Beck, I never really seem to see or hear them talk about gun rights that much. At least Beck addresses it, and he has been pretty regularly lately.

Dave L.

03-02-09, 10:27

I'm a Rush fan and people forget he is still a "shock Jock".

He also specified he wanted Obama to fail, not the USA. It's not like the RNC had him speak, that was CPAC...even Palin didn't show up.

Kaos

03-02-09, 10:32

I too prefer Beck.

I think that the spin on the "I want obama to fail" bit is getting into nooks and cranny's it shouldn't.

He wants liberalism and socialism to fail, and America to succeed. I dont listen to Rush either but caught a few minutes of the CPAC thing over the weekend where he explained this in detail.

I also watched in disgust as DL hughley talked to Steele last night about how "Black People vote democrat because democrats make sure they get things" It's hard to argue with someone who has no issues taking free handouts to the point where they depend on them.

This isn't to say that I feel all Black people are like this because I don't, they were strictly speaking of those living in poor areas.

The thing about it is...we all know socialism/communism/marxism has failed in the past, but what happened to the countries where a serious effort was put into making it work...look at russia....it's a dump.

Impact

03-02-09, 10:51

he is an attention whore..that's it.

AirmanAtwood

03-02-09, 10:53

I'm a Limbaugh and Hannity fan. And I don't think anything that they say is anything that could be considered inappropriate, or offensive, or anything like that. If you remember during the media's obama asskiss campaign they talked all sorts of bullshit about Palin, McCain, and all the other republicans and no one said a thing. But when a conservative says something about a democrap, all hell brakes loose and the conservatives are made to look like the bad guy. Rush didn't say he hopes the country is to fail with obama. What he said was he hopes obama fails so that none of his plans succeed and the US stays the country that it is.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 11:30

He also specified he wanted Obama to fail, not the USA.

If Obama and his policies fail, what happens to the US?

If Obama somehow succeeds, it will mean that everything we know about economics, markets and the last 230 years of American commercial dominance was wrong. If Limbaugh "hopes" Obama fails, instead of knowing he will, then Rush hasn't been paying attention.

No country stays the same. Change always happens, but conservatism argues that change should happen when absolutely necessary.

Limbaugh did not create individual liberty, free markets nor the conservative philosophy. If the best he can do is "hope" for Obama's failure than he is a poor spokesman for conservatism.

There was an excellent op-ed by David Brooks the other day I think spells out my concerns pretty clearly, not about Rush, but the anxiety I feel for the future of this country.

February 24, 2009
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Big Test

By DAVID BROOKS
“We cannot successfully address any of our problems without addressing all of them.”

Barack Obama, Feb. 21, 2009

When I was a freshman in college, I was assigned “Reflections on the Revolution in France” by Edmund Burke. I loathed the book. Burke argued that each individual’s private stock of reason is small and that political decisions should be guided by the accumulated wisdom of the ages. Change is necessary, Burke continued, but it should be gradual, not disruptive. For a young democratic socialist, hoping to help begin the world anew, this seemed like a reactionary retreat into passivity.

Over the years, I have come to see that Burke had a point. The political history of the 20th century is the history of social-engineering projects executed by well-intentioned people that began well and ended badly. There were big errors like communism, but also lesser ones, like a Vietnam War designed by the best and the brightest, urban renewal efforts that decimated neighborhoods, welfare policies that had the unintended effect of weakening families and development programs that left a string of white elephant projects across the world.

These experiences drove me toward the crooked timber school of public philosophy: Michael Oakeshott, Isaiah Berlin, Edward Banfield, Reinhold Niebuhr, Friedrich Hayek, Clinton Rossiter and George Orwell. These writers — some left, some right — had a sense of epistemological modesty. They knew how little we can know. They understood that we are strangers to ourselves and society is an immeasurably complex organism. They tended to be skeptical of technocratic, rationalist planning and suspicious of schemes to reorganize society from the top down.

Before long, I was no longer a liberal. Liberals are more optimistic about the capacity of individual reason and the government’s ability to execute transformational change. They have more faith in the power of social science, macroeconomic models and 10-point programs.

Readers of this column know that I am a great admirer of Barack Obama and those around him. And yet the gap between my epistemological modesty and their liberal worldviews has been evident over the past few weeks. The people in the administration are surrounded by a galaxy of unknowns, and yet they see this economic crisis as an opportunity to expand their reach, to take bigger risks and, as Obama said on Saturday, to tackle every major problem at once.

President Obama has concentrated enormous power on a few aides in the West Wing of the White House. These aides are unrolling a rapid string of plans: to create three million jobs, to redesign the health care system, to save the auto industry, to revive the housing industry, to reinvent the energy sector, to revitalize the banks, to reform the schools — and to do it all while cutting the deficit in half.

If ever this kind of domestic revolution were possible, this is the time and these are the people to do it. The crisis demands a large response. The people around Obama are smart and sober. Their plans are bold but seem supple and chastened by a realistic sensibility.

Yet they set off my Burkean alarm bells. I fear that in trying to do everything at once, they will do nothing well. I fear that we have a group of people who haven’t even learned to use their new phone system trying to redesign half the U.S. economy. I fear they are going to try to undertake the biggest administrative challenge in American history while refusing to hire the people who can help the most: agency veterans who are registered lobbyists.

I worry that we’re operating far beyond our economic knowledge. Every time the administration releases an initiative, I read 20 different economists with 20 different opinions. I worry that we lack the political structures to regain fiscal control. Deficits are exploding, and the president clearly wants to restrain them. But there’s no evidence that Democrats and Republicans in Congress have the courage or the mutual trust required to share the blame when taxes have to rise and benefits have to be cut.

All in all, I can see why the markets are nervous and dropping. And it’s also clear that we’re on the cusp of the biggest political experiment of our lifetimes. If Obama is mostly successful, then the epistemological skepticism natural to conservatives will have been discredited. We will know that highly trained government experts are capable of quickly designing and executing top-down transformational change. If they mostly fail, then liberalism will suffer a grievous blow, and conservatives will be called upon to restore order and sanity.

It’ll be interesting to see who’s right. But I can’t even root for my own vindication. The costs are too high. I have to go to the keyboard each morning hoping Barack Obama is going to prove me wrong.

Buckaroo

03-02-09, 11:43

Good read GSJ

In case anyone else was looking for it here is the link to David Brooks article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/opinion/24brooks.html?_r=1)

Buckaroo

Business_Casual

03-02-09, 12:23

What Rush said is he wants Obama's socialism to fail. I agree with him.

I want Obama's attempts to ban guns to fail. I want Obama's attempts to nationalize health care to fail. I want Obama's attempts to redistribute wealth to fail. I want Obama's attempts to destroy private investment/401Ks and replace them with government pensions to fail. I want Obama's attempts to replace the market's role in designing cars with his own ideas of what should drive to fail. I want Obama's attempts to destroy free speech with "local content" or whatever trick to fail.

Pay attention to what he actually said, not what the MSM reports he said.

M_P

markm

03-02-09, 12:24

Obama is a DUNCE.

The sooner he fails the better. If he doesn't fail hard and fast the country will continue down the slippery slope to complete SOCIALISM.

If Dunce boy doesn't fail hard, kiss your rights goodbye and say hello to big government for a long time.

parishioner

03-02-09, 12:33

It makes perfect sense.

You are absolutely crazy if you want Obama to succeed. If he succeeds, it is bad news for the USA.

His polices are so bad that if he were to succeed in implementing them all the US would be doomed.

That is why we want him to fail. Him failing would be the greatest thing to happen to this country.

It is still going to be bad for America regardless, but if he does fail at least the country will not be FUBAR.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 12:36

I want Obama's attempts to ban guns to fail.

To achieve that end he has to actually fix and stabilize the economy. To achieve social ends he needs to build political capital by fixing the economy. Since history has shown you can't fix an economy by resorting to socialist economics and the policies you enumerated, Obama is condemning himself to failure. Why else do you think the markets are tanking? They hoped he wouldn't disincentivize risk, but he did exactly that.

Pay attention to what he actually said, not what the MSM reports he said.

Pay attention to what I actually said. If you think I'm going by the MSM than you haven't. By the way, if you haven't noticed, Rush is part of the MSM.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 12:41

You are absolutely crazy if you want Obama to succeed. If he succeeds, it is bad news for the USA.

Please, READ what I wrote.

Success in creating a socialist economy IS NOT what I'm talking about.

Success in stabilizing the economy so America can get back to business IS what I'm talking about.

By any definition of success Obama must make life better for Americans. If he doesn't, he gets voted out of office sooner rather than later.

It's like the law of gravity. People don't elect losers and Obama is making himself a one-term president

ONE MORE TIME...obviously socialism IS NOT going to stabilize diddly, but the cost of his failure is fair higher than the cost of success.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 12:43

If dunceboy fails, he just loses political office.

We lose an economy.

You all know what a Pyrrhic victory is right?

markm

03-02-09, 13:05

We lose an economy.

An economy has a better chance of rebirth than an entire democracy.

thopkins22

03-02-09, 13:06

If dunceboy fails, he just loses political office.

We lose an economy.

I'd rather have short term economic chaos than long term socialist mediocrity.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 13:13

An economy has a better chance of rebirth than an entire democracy.

The entire republic is at risk without the economic means to pay for our defense.

Democracy is irrelevant without a nation that can sustain itself.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 13:15

I'd rather have short term economic chaos than long term socialist mediocrity.

I wish it were that simple, I'm not the one you have to convince.

The question is whether you'd like to have both.

hp35

03-02-09, 13:16

Please, READ what I wrote.

Success in creating a socialist economy IS NOT what I'm talking about.

Success in stabilizing the economy so America can get back to business IS what I'm talking about.

By any definition of success Obama must make life better for Americans. If he doesn't, he gets voted out of office sooner rather than later.

It's like the law of gravity. People don't elect losers and Obama is making himself a one-term president

ONE MORE TIME...obviously socialism IS NOT going to stabilize diddly, but the cost of his failure is fair higher than the cost of success.

So you would rather an economy stabilized with socialist policies than an economy recovering on its own?

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 13:17

So you would rather an economy stabilized with socialist policies than an economy recovering on its own?

Go back and re-read what I wrote since you didn't understand it.

markm

03-02-09, 13:19

The entire republic is at risk without the economic means to pay for our defense.

Democracy is irrelevant without a nation that can sustain itself.

This country bounced back from the great depression. A much more realistic feat than bouncing back from Tyranny and Socialism in my opinion.

thopkins22

03-02-09, 13:24

This country bounced back from the great depression. A much more realistic feat than bouncing back from Tyranny and Socialism in my opinion.

Though FDR left us with plenty of both of those to bounce back from as well. In fact if you had to point out when the wellfare state started, that would be it. And we've never gotten rid of it.

I think the great depression would only have been a severe recession if it wasn't for all of the bull the federal government/federal reserve decided to do. Things that we're unfortunately doing now.

Dirt

03-02-09, 13:27

I get the feeling that someone here is a closet 'socialist'!:mad:

Bob

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 13:29

This country bounced back from the great depression. A much more realistic feat than bouncing back from Tyranny and Socialism in my opinion.

This country bounced back from the Great Depression because you had a government and policies in place that rewarded risk-taking and investment.

As government grew, it delayed, not improved recovery from the depression. Still you had some reward for investors and risk-takers and as government grew they found that they could keep raising taxes through the Great Society until you got to a 70% tax rate in the late seventies. Those kinds of policies are clearly tyrannical socialism.

Now we're heading back to that point, and while it's doomed to failure, Rush gives them a convenient target and way to say "oh see Rush is a freakin Nazi". You and I both know its a lie, but he plays right into it. Instead of offering honest criticism and trying to mitigate the disaster, he causes them to dig in their heels and makes it all the more likely to come to past.

So even if he wins...he looses. Believe me, I would know. :D

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 13:30

I get the feeling that someone here is a closet 'socialist'!:mad:

Bob

If you're talking about me, you're not only dead wrong, but proving my point about Rush.

hp35

03-02-09, 13:32

ONE MORE TIME...obviously socialism IS NOT going to stabilize diddly, but the cost of his failure is fair higher than the cost of success.[/QUOTE]

In the above statement, that I don't understand, you say the cost of his failure is greater than the cost of his success.

His "success" is a socialist economic system for the U.S.

His "failure" is an economy that recovers on its own, after some economic hardship.

You say socialism is not going to stabilize "diddly", what template do you think he is using to try and stabilize the ecomnomy.

Palmguy

03-02-09, 13:33

By any definition of success Obama must make life better for Americans. [/b]

I'm astounded at the flack he is catching for his remarks, but at the same time I'm not entirely surprised either. The sound bite "I hope he fails" sure does sound inflammatory and he is a popular target anyways.

I think if you are looking at what Rush said through the prism of the above-quoted text, you aren't really getting the point of what he said.

I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing. "

-Rush Limbaugh, January 16th, 2009

Obama's 'success' does not equal success for the country. I'd go so far as to say that based on what he has proposed, the two are inversely proportional. That is what Rush is trying to say here. He hopes that Obama fails in implementing his stated agenda. It's important to note that his agenda itself and the goals that he expects from that agenda are not one and the same. How does this failure take place? By conservatives winning the battle of ideas and being able to convince the country that Obama's plan is not going to help the economy...that is one way that Obama would fail [to implement his policies].

I fail to see what is so horrible about that point of view.

Please, READ what I wrote.

Success in creating a socialist economy IS NOT what I'm talking about.

Success in stabilizing the economy so America can get back to business IS what I'm talking about.

You need to read what Rush wrote, because you two aren't talking about the same thing based on this quoted text.

By any definition of success Obama must make life better for Americans. If he doesn't, he gets voted out of office sooner rather than later.

I disagree. A reasonable standard of 'success' based on what Rush said is whether or not Obama is able to implement the policies that he has stated that he supports. Success in implementing that agenda obviously does not have a direct relationship with making life better for Americans.

It's like the law of gravity. People don't elect losers and Obama is making himself a one-term president

ONE MORE TIME...obviously socialism IS NOT going to stabilize diddly, but the cost of his failure is fair higher than the cost of success.

Disagree here as well. This claim depends on the definition of the word failure. As Rush is using it, that statement is not true. As you are using it, it may be.

If Obama and his policies fail, what happens to the US?

If Obama fails to implement his policies, that is a good thing for the US.

If Obama somehow succeeds, it will mean that everything we know about economics, markets and the last 230 years of American commercial dominance was wrong.

Again, define success. As Rush uses it, he is speaking of the ability of Obama to implement his policies.

If Limbaugh "hopes" Obama fails, instead of knowing he will, then Rush hasn't been paying attention.

He doesn't know he will fail (to implement his agenda). That is a point of uncertainty. He knows that the implementation of his policies will fail to make things better.

No country stays the same. Change always happens, but conservatism argues that change should happen when absolutely necessary.

Limbaugh did not create individual liberty, free markets nor the conservative philosophy. If the best he can do is "hope" for Obama's failure than he is a poor spokesman for conservatism.

Read the whole thing. He was asked: "If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency..."

His answer was that he hopes Obama fails, in that he doesn't want to saddle our grandkids with more liberalism and socialism.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 13:37

ONE MORE TIME...obviously socialism IS NOT going to stabilize diddly, but the cost of his failure is fair higher than the cost of success.

In the above statement, that I don't understand, you say the cost of his failure is greater than the cost of his success.

His "success" is a socialist economic system for the U.S.

His "failure" is an economy that recovers on its own, after some economic hardship.

Sigh, sorry but that's just a silly semantic argument. Yes I'm sure you can dance around those words all day, but ultimately that gets us nowhere.

You're confusing "success" in implementing his policies with success as a President.

Rush can oppose his policies and hope for his success as a President, but what people hear is simply a mean-spirited attack on a popular President.

We live in a Democracy and more than half the people spoke and elected Obama. I may disagree with that choice, and I may fiercely disagree with his policies but as an American I wish him success as a President.

Nathan_Bell

03-02-09, 13:42

Look at the market. If Bush had a drop of 100 points the press screamed like hell about it.
Now we have lost 51% of the total in less than a year, most of that (~41%) has come since it became apparent that Zero would be the POTUS. Do we hear a word about this on the news?

Zero and his policies ARE failing, it is just that no-one will stand up and state it. So we are heading for more losses and turmoil as his plans begin to bear fruit.

Hopefully people will start to look at the timeline here and realize that it is the socialist/fascist policies of O that are to blame for their 401ks becomeing worth about enough to buy lunck at McD's

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 13:48

I'm astounded at the flack he is catching for his remarks, but at the same time I'm not entirely surprised either. The sound bite "I hope he fails" sure does sound inflammatory and he is a popular target anyways.

I think if you are looking at what Rush said through the prism of the above-quoted text, you aren't really getting the point of what he said.

I actually saw his speech at CPAC, I'm taking Rush at his words, in context. It was red-meat thrown to a crowd, nothing more.

Obama's 'success' does not equal success for the country.

As I said above, we can dance around semantic definitions of "success" or "failure" all day but it gets us nowhere. Socialist economics will inevitably FAIL. But while I can oppose his policies, knowing that they will fail, I can still hope that the President will suceed in restoring greatness to this country.

I'd go so far as to say that based on what he has proposed, the two are inversely proportional. That is what Rush is trying to say here. He hopes that Obama fails in implementing his stated agenda. It's important to note that his agenda itself and the goals that he expects from that agenda are not one and the same. How does this failure take place? By conservatives winning the battle of ideas and being able to convince the country that Obama's plan is not going to help the economy...that is one way that Obama would fail [to implement his policies].

I fail to see what is so horrible about that point of view.

Conservatives aren't going to win the battle of ideas if like Rush they make it an emotionally personal attack, rather than on the intellectural merits of a policy. Making Rush the role-model for conservatism is to courting electoral disaster for a generation.

You need to read what Rush wrote, because you two aren't talking about the same thing based on this quoted text.

I saw the speech he gave at CPAC, I'm not taking things out of context.

I disagree. A reasonable standard of 'success' based on what Rush said is whether or not Obama is able to implement the policies that he has stated that he supports. Success in implementing that agenda obviously does not have a direct relationship with making life better for Americans.

Again we can dance around the semantics of what makes "success" or "failure". But if Obama's policies FAIL, we lose.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 13:49

Rider

03-02-09, 13:49

Rush can say whatever he wants, it's his job to stir the pot. However, wishing for Obama to fail is not a good thing IMHO. I would say that hoping he is successful in turning the country around AND that he does not drag us too far to the left is better. Obama is not the devil, he has some bad idea's and some good one's. We all need him to be smart and not pander to the Pelosi's but he has to do something to get things rolling again. I am a Republican or Libertarian on most issues but I gotta admit, Bush and the Republican led congress from 1994-2006 made one heck of a lot of bad decisions too. Look where were at. Still, I don't want this country to be a far left one and I hope Obama can steer the middle course with some success. And keep his hands off our guns, that will change my opinion up quick.

hp35

03-02-09, 13:52

You're confusing "success" in implementing his policies with success as a President.

Rush can oppose his policies and hope for his success as a President, but what people hear is simply a mean-spirited attack on a popular President.

We live in a Democracy and more than half the people spoke and elected Obama. I may disagree with that choice, and I may fiercely disagree with his policies but as an American I wish him success as a President.[/QUOTE]

Sigh, until you are willing to open your eyes and see that his success as a President is his ability to implement a socialist agenda you are deluding yourself. You are trying to be "fair" to a man who would gladly strip you of your rights and your money.

Dirt

03-02-09, 13:56

If you're talking about me, you're not only dead wrong, but proving my point about Rush.

:confused:

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 13:56

I'm just tired of this red meat conservative nonsense. People like Limbaugh are no different than Al Franken et al. undermining President Bush.

I miss the old days when conservatives were intellectuals and men of integrity. How hard is it to point out the rational failures of spending $4.3 TRILLION dollars? and yet Limbaugh can't even manage that?

Instead we get media whores on both sides who have every mercenary interest in seeing this nation fall apart so they can throw bricks from the sidelines shrieking "I TOLD YOU SO!!"

F'ing pathetic.

MarshallDodge

03-02-09, 13:58

I don't live my life by what Rush Limbaugh says but I do enjoy listening to his show from time to time.

Define failure. If getting a government handout at every tough time in your life is considered a success then we are in trouble.

This country has been headed in the wrong direction for a while and if Obama keeps going in that same direction then we are headed for failure.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 13:59

Sigh, until you are willing to open your eyes and see that his success as a President is his ability to implement a socialist agenda you are deluding yourself. You are trying to be "fair" to a man who would gladly strip you of your rights and your money.

Thank you for proving my point. I'm not confusing anything. I clearly differentiated between "success" as President and my disagreement with policies which I've stated repeatedly are destined to fail. If you've missed this than what can I say but you would do well to open your own eyes.

I disagree with Rush, so I must be trying to support Barack Obama?

If you and Rush are representative of the future of conservatism, I can see Barry O is going to have his way after all.

Nathan_Bell

03-02-09, 14:01

Actually I've heard it regularly.

Yes, but how often is it mentioned in the context of the markets being forward looking and they are reacting to O's stated policies and goals?
Much less often than it is stated the "Bush got us here, Barry will get us out of it"

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 14:02

Yes, but how often is it mentioned in the context of the markets being forward looking and they are reacting to O's stated policies and goals?

This got a lot of play and a direct comment by the White House. Please note the prominently displayed "NBC" logo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgJ30bihdy8

Business_Casual

03-02-09, 14:05

I should have known you'd start back-tracking and making excuses when you were shown to be wrong.

Where is the ignore button?

M_P

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 14:06

I should have known you'd start back-tracking and making excuses when you were shown to be wrong.

Where is the ignore button?

M_P

Backtracking?

WTF are you talking about?

parishioner

03-02-09, 14:06

BAC

03-02-09, 14:07

A constitutional republic can only exist so long as it is strong, and can only be strong if it has a stable or better economy.

That aside, I completely agree with your original post, Gutshot John.

-B

Dirt

03-02-09, 14:10

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 14:10

The way I see it there are only two possible outcomes after his term as President.
Its basically a lose lose situation for Americawith one being worse than the other.

Outcome #1. He will implement his plans to succesfully turn America into a Socialist country, destroying the constitution and yada yada yada. This would make Obama "SUCCESSFUL". This will make America "UNSUCCESSFUL". This is worst case.

Outcome #2. He will fail at implementing his plans and not be re-elected. Hopefully the economy will not be so bad that it can bounce back and we can continue life as it should be. This will make Obama "UNSUCCESSFUL". This will make America "UNSUCCESFUL". Even though both outcomes are unsuccessful for America the second outcome is what we want. Its kind of like tough love.

That's how YOU have defined it.

Not how I had defined it.

So for the last time, I hope that Obama is successful in restoring American greatness, given his policies I'm skeptical that he can.

I can see that one must never dare to question the immortal Rush, the sainted avatar of Conservatism will lead his army of might dittoheads forward and crush the wicked forces of Obama, thereby creating the pure, Conservative Utopia that will make all our problems go away.

Yeah right. :rolleyes:

Palmguy

03-02-09, 14:19

I actually saw his speech at CPAC, I'm taking Rush at his words, in context. It was red-meat thrown to a crowd, nothing more.

I'm not talking about CPAC, exclusively anyways. This whole "I hope he fails" thing originated in January and blew up in January. That is where the large quote from Rush's radio show that I posted came from. It is his explanation for his stance and for the sound bite "I hope he fails". If you read it, it should be clear to someone that doesn't already have their mind made up what he means, and it's not a bad thing.

As I said above, we can dance around semantic definitions of "success" or "failure" all day but it gets us nowhere.

Your OP was a criticism of Rush Limbaugh for his statement about failure with respect to the Obama Administration. It seems to me that if you want to criticize him, you might want to look at the semantics of what he was saying and not what you personally believe. If he is talking about toasters, and he meant a device used to heat up and brown bread, bagels, english muffins etc, and you think he is talking about a frisbee, what is the point?

Socialist economics will inevitably FAIL. But while I can oppose his policies, knowing that they will fail, I can still hope that the President will suceed in restoring greatness to this country.

This makes zero sense to me. You know that his policies will fail, so how exactly is the President going to succeed in restoring greatness to this country if his policies, socialist economics, don't work? That last line sounds all patriotic and what not but it doesn't jive logically with the first part. The only way that the President can succeed in restoring greatness to this country is if he changes his policies about 180 degrees from what they are currently.

Conservatives aren't going to win the battle of ideas if like Rush they make it an emotionally personal attack, rather than on the intellectural merits of a policy. Making Rush the role-model for conservatism is to courting electoral disaster for a generation.

And if you read the quote I posted from January 16th, you would see that it is an attack on the intellectual merits of a policy, not an attack on the man.

Example:

Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?

He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism?

Again we can dance around the semantics of what makes "success" or "failure". But if Obama's policies FAIL, we lose.

Obama's policies WILL fail the American People. However, if Obama fails to implement his policies, we WIN. This is what Rush is saying.

Yojimbo

03-02-09, 14:20

JMHO, but if Obama's Marxist/Socialist policies fail it will be a victory for freedom and the American way. I actually believe things will get better faster and don't see things getting worse if Obama's policies fail miserably.

In fact if you are a Conservative and take an honest look at the crap Obama is trying to do there is no way you would want it to succeed because these things will be a disaster for America.

Palmguy

03-02-09, 14:21

That's how YOU have defined it.

Not how I had defined it.

So you admit there are differences in definitions? That has been my whole point all along.

Your quote put another way, from my point of view:

That's how YOU have defined it.

Not how Rush had defined it.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 14:25

I'm not talking about CPAC. This whole "I hope he fails" thing originated in January and blew up in January. That is where the large quote from Rush's radio show that I posted came from. It is his explanation for his stance and for the sound bite "I hope he fails". If you read it, it should be clear to someone that doesn't already have their mind made up what he means, and it's not a bad thing.

He took the opportunity to clarify his original statement and elaborate further at CPAC. He didn't back away from the original statement even a little bit.

Your OP was a criticism of Rush Limbaugh for his statement about failure with respect to the Obama Administration. It seems to me that if you want to criticize him, you might want to look at the semantics of what he was saying and not what you personally believe. If he is talking about toasters, and he meant a device used to heat up and brown bread, bagels, english muffins etc, and you think he is talking about a frisbee, what is the point?

His original and follow-up statement were described by me in my OP as "inartful".

Meaning I understood his intent, but he expressed it very poorly. When given a chance to clarify, he chose to dig deeper. All in all giving the Obama administration all the opportunity it needs to use him to distract/deflect criticism.

Once again Rush...don't be on my side.

There are plenty of ways to oppose Obama's policies on the merits or lack therof.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 14:27

So you admit there are differences in definitions? That has been my whole point all along.

And if you have to spend 20 minutes in a speech defending your definitions, you've already lost the argument.

Once again my original point stands, if the Republican Party makes Rush to role-model for American conservatism, if it's perceived as pursuing an ideologic agenda instead of common-sense governance, it won't be a going concern for a while.

I have no understanding of those that pursue partisan victory over national interest.

Yojimbo

03-02-09, 14:34

Once again my original point stands, if the Republican Party makes Rush to role-model for American conservatism, if it's perceived as pursuing an ideologic agenda instead of common-sense governance, it won't be a going concern for a while.

I have no understanding of those that pursue partisan victory over national interest.

IMHO, the real problem is Republican party is no longer conservative is chock full of RINO's.

To me Obama's policies are directly against our national interests...

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 14:36

IMHO, the real problem is Republican party is no longer conservative is chock full of RINO's.

To me Obama's policies are directly against our national interests...

You won't find any disagreement from me on either point.

Palmguy

03-02-09, 14:37

His original and follow-up statement were described by me in my OP as "inartful".

Meaning I understood his intent, but he expressed it very poorly. When given a chance to clarify, he chose to dig deeper. All in all giving the Obama administration all the opportunity it needs to use him to distract/deflect criticism.

This is from your OP:

For instance saying that he "hopes the Obama administration fails". Hopes? Why would you hope the country suffers? I understand that one may fear the consequences of his actions, but to hope the nation fails smacks so much of the flawed utopianism and societal sabotage usually associated with the left.

My point has been that based on this quote from your OP, you really don't understand his intent. He doesn't hope this country suffers. To him (and you and me), Obama's success is equivalent to suffering for this country.

Hoping for the country to suffer so that your party can get back in power is certainly the epitome of partisan BS and is destructive in my opinion. Hoping for Obama to fail however is hoping for the country to prosper.

And if you have to spend 20 minutes in a speech defending your definitions, you've already lost the argument.

Once again Rush...don't be on my side.

There are plenty of ways to oppose Obama's policies on the merits or lack therof.

The only reason that so much time has been devoted to defending the definitions, both here and elsewhere, is that it seems people refuse to actually read anything past "I hope he fails". Reference my post at 2:19pm CST.

You don't want Rush to speak for you, fine. I get it. You think he didn't do a good job of getting his point across? Fine, I get that too. What I have a problem with is characterizing what he said as hoping that the country suffers. Doesn't fly with me.

Rider

03-02-09, 14:39

Some good one's (if he/they/us can get it done right and without too much thievery)-

Cut medical spending by computerizing the records
Get Americans working by re-building the roads, bridges, train tracks and schools etc DONT HIRE THE IMMIGRANTS on these jobs
Education tax breaks for college
More educational funding for the states
Try to develop a better American supplied source of power for the future
Cut down the amount of dollars and troops going to Iraq, beef up the same in Afghanistan
Get Bin Laden even if he is in Pakistan (if he is alive)
Eliminate some wasteful spending programs

Hell, I don't know if he means to do what he says on those issues but if he does, I would support that. I am not an Obama fanboy and I am sure he will do plenty that I don't like too so I will keep an eye open for that.

Dirt

03-02-09, 14:41

I can see that one must never dare to question the immortal Rush, the sainted avatar of Conservatism will lead his army of might dittoheads forward and crush the wicked forces of Obama (Nancy, Harry, Barney, Hillary, Rom...), thereby creating the pure, Conservative Utopia that will make all our problems go away.

Hallelujah brother. You have seen the light! Amen.

Bob

Fixed it for ya.:rolleyes:

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 14:42

My point has been that based on this quote from your OP, you really don't understand his intent. He doesn't hope this country suffers. To him (and you and me), Obama's success is equivalent to suffering for this country.

But that is not what most people heard, and no matter if they agree with him, he's made himself the issue rather than the Obama policies.

Hoping for the country to suffer so that your party can get back in power is certainly the epitome of partisan BS and is destructive in my opinion. Hoping for Obama to fail however is hoping for the country to prosper.

I don't have to hope to know that Obama's policies will fail. They will fail if they are instituted as presented. This failure represents a significant cost well in excess of partisan advantage.

Palmguy

03-02-09, 14:51

But that is not what most people heard, and no matter if they agree with him, he's made himself the issue rather than the Obama policies.

Most people voted for Obama. Most people are apparently idiots. I don't know what else to say. I've already given the text of what he said. It centers on Obama policies.

I don't have to hope to know that Obama's policies will fail. They will fail if they are instituted as presented. This failure represents a significant cost well in excess of partisan advantage.

Rush knows Obama's policies will fail too. That is why he hopes that Obama fails to implement them. This should be crystal clear if you read the quote that I have provided. The quoted text does not strike me as hoping for a partisan advantage, it strikes me as hoping that 'our grandchildren are not saddled with the burdens of socialism'.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 14:51

Combined with 2.3Trillion in spending so far since February 2008 and the first stimulus package, and the proposed 1.5-2 trillion in spending/interest we're looking at about $4trillion.

Divide that up between 300 million Americans and see what number you get. You could give that money in cash to every American, and get more economic benefit than through this entire nonsense. Not to mention shore up mortgages, relieve debt, invest in future education and provide for infrastructure through increased revenue through economic growth. The poorer you are, the more benefit you would see from that money. If you're under 18 you have to put that money into a college fund. I'd never argue for such a profound giveaway, but if we're just going to light a bunch of fires and throw cash on them, why the hell not?

Failure transcends partisan success or failre. I am sick of media whores who risk NOTHING, fiddle while Rome burns...in fact who make nice fat paychecks from the ashes.

They've no more interest in solving the problem than the liberals they berate.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 14:59

Most people voted for Obama. Most people are apparently idiots. I don't know what else to say. I've already given the text of what he said. It centers on Obama policies.

And he did, once again, a horrible job of critiquing those policies. Once again I wish he wasn't on my side. I wish more conservatives would actually think and read for themselves rather than parroting that kind of red meat nonsense. Yes it may center on the policies being "bad" but he does nothing other than to say they're "bad". He just calls them socialist and lets the label speak for itself and does nothing to reveal them for the frauds they are.

Rush knows Obama's policies will fail too. That is why he hopes that Obama fails to implement them. This should be crystal clear if you read the quote that I have provided. The quoted text does not strike me as hoping for a partisan advantage, it strikes me as hoping that 'our grandchildren are not saddled with the burdens of socialism'.

Rush didn't say "They will fail". He said "I hope they fail". He doesn't understand the intellectual foundation of why they must fail. He doesn't bother to explain it, or explore it in any meaningful way and so as is so often the case, I'm left going, dude...stop being on my side. He argues by tautology and whenever someone questions him, bullies them. If he is the role-model for Conservatism than it has abandoned its intellectual origins.

While he may be a conservative, he is just as much a demagogue as Barry and should elicit as much Burkean skepticism as the most radical liberal.

parishioner

03-02-09, 15:22

10MMGary

03-02-09, 15:26

Yeah it is Rush's fault,,,, whatever. Rush is absolutely right and those that don't get it are a big part of the problem. I personally hope President Obama lives a long wonderful life and has many beautiful grandchildren that he can enjoy for a long time. I also hope he fails miserably and is remembered as the worst President ever. Many of you people seem to forget he is the enemy and everything he stands for is wrong. I would rather the whole US economy collapses and we start over from the devastation than to live in a socialist country. Welfare AFDC Unemployment insurance and Social Security are all traps that keep people down and make people hand out addicted. This country needs a good kick in the nuts to snap it out of it denial.

Palmguy

03-02-09, 15:46

And he did, once again, a horrible job of critiquing those policies. Once again I wish he wasn't on my side. I wish more conservatives would actually think and read for themselves rather than parroting that kind of red meat nonsense. Yes it may center on the policies being "bad" but he does nothing other than to say they're "bad". He just calls them socialist and lets the label speak for itself and does nothing to reveal them for the frauds they are.

Rush didn't say "They will fail". He said "I hope they fail". He doesn't understand the intellectual foundation of why they must fail. He doesn't bother to explain it, or explore it in any meaningful way and so as is so often the case, I'm left going, dude...stop being on my side. He argues by tautology and whenever someone questions him, bullies them. If he is the role-model for Conservatism than it has abandoned its intellectual origins.

While he may be a conservative, he is just as much a demagogue as Barry and should elicit as much Burkean skepticism as the most radical liberal.

Look, you obviously have your mind made up. That's fine. Fact is, for anyone who doesn't automatically have their mind made up at "I hope he fails", for anyone who doesn't have a visceral response to the words "Rush Limbaugh", and for anyone who makes a half-assed attempt at objectivity, when reading the quote that I provided shouldn't have any trouble coming to the following conclusions about what Rush thinks:

1. Obama's policies are harmful to this country
2. He hopes that Obama fails in implementing those policies
3. Obama's failure in implementing those policies will be a benefit to this country

It was three paragraphs, I'm not sure that's enough to go into why the multitude of Obama's socialist policies will fail, with 3 citations each :rolleyes: I'm not a regular listener to Rush's show, but I have heard him get into specifics. You've said far more than the original quote from Rush re: "I hope he fails" in this thread, all operating with the warrant that socialism = bad but likewise without going into detail on why socialism = bad. Just scanning at the end of the CPAC speech, here's one example of a problem with the current line of thinking by the Obama Administration (and the late Bush admin, for that matter):

The president's stimulus package, the TARP, the whatever, the budget, relies on one thing for its success. Well, aside from authoritarian government power. It relies on the complacency of the American people. It relies on their belief that they can convince the American people that there's such a crisis that only government, the only entity that can fix it is government, as Obama has said. So they get complacent and they sit around and they wait. See, this is something liberals will never understand about the United States of America and it's right under their noses, right in front of their faces, we are a competitive people. We strive, enough of us do, to be the best. We strive to win. We strive to avoid defeat. Enough of us still do. Don't believe otherwise. The liberals have made efforts to shut that aspect of our nature down. Wherever you live, I am certain that you, when you were a child or your kids today in youth sports are told not to keep score, because the losers, it's just not fair. They'd be humiliated, especially if one girl's basketball team can defeat another one 100 to nothing. And let's fire the coach who put that game together. It's so unfair. So let's not keep score. Well, here's the dirty little secret. The kids are keeping score. [Applause] You know they are. They don't want to lose. They know what winning and losing is. They're saying, well, why go out there and put on the pads and play football or T-Ball if the objective here is to not keep score. So they're keeping score. They get in the car with mom and dad and they tell mom and dad: Yeah, we kicked their butts tonight. Wait a minute, I thought you weren't keeping score. They weren't officially. They keep score. We're competitive people. Adults are doing the same thing.

It didn't take long for people to get fired up when they figured out that they're going to be paying mortgages for people who should never have been lent money in the first place for the bogus excuse of maintaining property values in the neighborhood. This is something that -- the complacency of the American people is something they're going to rely on along with their authoritarian efforts to control it. But they will not succeed at this. Because we're not quitters. We don't acquiesce. We're not going to give up the American dream and watch idly while it is restructured and transformed.

The statement "He doesn't understand..." seems incredibly arrogant to me.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 16:03

Conservatism has existed long before Rush Limbaugh arrived on the scene. In its time it's had far more eloquent and intellectual defenders.

That people view Limbaugh as some sort of father of Convervatism, and its modern embodiment undermines its credibility.

I don't dispute that Limbaugh disagrees with liberals and democrats, but simply calling something socialism without explaining how individual policies fail is doing a disservice to the conservative cause. ALL democrats can't be socialist.

Obama is no more socialist than FDR or LBJ (and perhaps GWB). While you and I might say that this makes him pretty socialist, most people don't view them as socialist, no matter what Rush limbaugh may believe or say. It's akin to calling someone a nazi.

In the marketplace of ideas, most people will reject that brand of conservatism and if Limbaugh is associated with conservatism as a whole, Barry O gets re-elected.

As for Limbaugh understanding, his own words reveal his lack of it. If that makes me arrogant, oh well.

Dirt

03-02-09, 16:10

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 17:02

In watching the news today I see there was quite a few news outlets who were calling Rush Limbaugh something akin to a hatemonger.

If that's the impression I've given by my criticisms than I withdraw them. I don't believe that Limbaugh is a hatemonger, only as a deeply flawed embodiment of conservatism.

I only disagree with Rush's methods, not his distaste for Obama's policies.

John_Wayne777

03-02-09, 17:09

I don't dispute that Limbaugh disagrees with liberals and democrats, but simply calling something socialism without explaining how individual policies fail is doing a disservice to the conservative cause. ALL democrats can't be socialist.

I seem to recall Mr. Limbaugh stating on many occasions that many of the policies most cherished by democrats:

1. Take away individual incentive to strive for success
2. Subsidize bad/foolish behavior
3. Place sufficient burden upon economic activity so as to discourage it and reduce the incentive to invest
4. Make a practice of involving government in areas the founders never intended for government to go
5. Blatantly ignores the text of the Constitution

...and several others I do not have time to list here.

Exactly what sort of "explaining how individual policies fail" are you looking for?

As for who is and is not a "socialist", it's a matter of degrees. Someone who believes that government has a right to raid the paycheck of one person to "help" another at the point of a gun qualifies as a socialist, regardless of how they feel about the label.

Obama is no more socialist than FDR or LBJ (and perhaps GWB).

FDR was the closest thing the US ever had to a dictator. It's amazing how much will be glossed over when you have a sympathetic media and a dedicated interest in making sure the president "succeeds"....

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 17:14

I seem to recall Mr. Limbaugh stating on many occasions that many of the policies most cherished by democrats:

1. Take away individual incentive to strive for success
2. Subsidize bad/foolish behavior
3. Place sufficient burden upon economic activity so as to discourage it and reduce the incentive to invest
4. Make a practice of involving government in areas the founders never intended for government to go
5. Blatantly ignores the text of the Constitution

Whatever you and I may believe, I doubt very much that most people that voted democrat would say they agree with, let alone "cherish" any of those things.

As for who is and is not a "socialist", it's a matter of degrees. Someone who believes that government has a right to raid the paycheck of one person to "help" another at the point of a gun qualifies as a socialist, regardless of how they feel about the label.

I'd say that plenty of so-called conservatives, including GWB, have driven this country so far to the left, with the support of people like Rush Limbaugh, that whatever Obama/Pelosi do only becomes the "matter of degrees" you mentioned.

FDR was the closest thing the US ever had to a dictator. It's amazing how much will be glossed over when you have a sympathetic media and a dedicated interest in making sure the president "succeeds"....

Whatever his dictatorial qualities, many people look on FDR as a success. While you and I might quibble with their interpretation, he had to have done a few things right in order to sustain it.

John_Wayne777

03-02-09, 17:15

If that's the impression I've given by my criticisms than I withdraw them. I don't believe that Limbaugh is a hatemonger, only as a deeply flawed embodiment of conservatism.

He's not the embodiment of conservatism. He's a voice in conservatism...a successful voice that resonates with people. People don't listen to him because they are mind numbed robots who repeat what he says. They listen to him because some of the things he says resonates with them on a deep fundamental level.

He's also proven to have a hell of a lot more backbone than some of the self proclaimed "conservative elites".

Is he perfect? No. For starters, he should give a speech like he's giving a speech rather than like he's hosting his radio program. Outline important points....lay them out logically...stick to them. Gingrich spoke at CPAC and managed to do exactly that.

That being said, the content of Limbaugh's remarks weren't cause for concern. Of course, I don't derive my self image from fretting about who is on "my side" in the hopes of looking smarter than the next guy or appearing to be more "acceptable" to people who aren't going to accept me.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 17:22

That being said, the content of Limbaugh's remarks weren't cause for concern. Of course, I don't derive my self image from fretting about who is on "my side" in the hopes of looking smarter than the next guy or appearing to be more "acceptable" to people who aren't going to accept me.

I'm not sure I understand.

If conservatism is marginalized by its association with Limbaugh, or if conservatism lets Limbaugh decides who is or who is not a conservative, it will be discredited in the eyes of the electorate.

You may view it as an issue of "self-image". I view it as a problem of political viability.

John_Wayne777

03-02-09, 17:24

Whatever you and I may believe, I doubt very much that most people that voted democrat would say they agree with, let alone "cherish" any of those things.

...but none of that changes the reality of what those policies actually do.

I'd say that plenty of so-called conservatives, including GWB, have driven this country so far to the left, with the support of people like Rush Limbaugh, that whatever Obama/Pelosi do only becomes the "matter of degrees" you mentioned.

George W. Bush was not a conservative. In fact, I distinctly remember Mr. Limbaugh having a fit when Mr. Bush came out with that "compassionate conservative" line in 2000. I distinctly remember Mr. Limbaugh stating that conservatism is inherently "compassionate" because it is the ONLY political philosophy that nurtures individual freedom and liberty which has proven over history's long years to be the ONLY method of guaranteeing the most happiness for the most people. I distinctly remember Mr. Limbaugh warning that it was a bad sign when someone who wanted to claim the conservative label felt the need to insert the term "compassionate" in front of it to apologize.

I distinctly remember Mr. Limbaugh loudly criticizing President Bush on MANY occasions....and I rarely listen to the man's program.

Whatever his dictatorial qualities, many people look on FDR as a success.

...and if George W. Bush had tried to pack the court, scaring them so bad they rubber stamped anything and everything he wanted without the slightest concern for unimportant details like precedent or the text of the Constitution...and if Bush had interned all the muslims...well...suffice it to say that Mr. Bush wouldn't be remembered very fondly for it.

As I said, it's amazing how much one can get away with when he has a sympathetic press and the silly idea that for the good of the republic he must "succeed".

John_Wayne777

03-02-09, 17:30

I'm not sure I understand.

If conservatism is marginalized by its association with Limbaugh, or if conservatism lets Limbaugh decides who is or who is not a conservative, it will be discredited in the eyes of the electorate.

Who is and is not a "conservative" is not in Limbaugh's discretion. There are objective standards that define who is and is not a conservative. Limbaugh is irksome to many because he occasionally reminds people what some of those standards are, and because he points to Reagan who managed to win lots of support from the electorate because he understood that conservative principles resonate with the decent people who make our society function.

You may view it as an issue of "self-image". I view it as a problem of political viability.

...and anyone who actually articulates conservative principles will be pilloried by the media in the same treatment that Limbaugh has received. Reagan was treated that way. Bork was treated that way. Thomas was treated that way. Gingrich was treated that way.

Republicans who are by all measures very liberal get the same treatment when they are no longer of use to the left. Ask George H. W. Bush and John McCain about that. If media criticism becomes a disqualifier then you're setting an impossible standard. The bottom line is this: Conservative ideas and principles are hated by a lot of influential people with access to the airwaves. Anyone and everyone who espouses them will become a lightning rod of criticism from the Chris Matthewses, Kieth Olbermans, Judy Woodruffs, Al Hunts, Juan Williamses, Bill Moyerses, etc. in the media. Such is life.

Cameron

03-02-09, 17:32

Lets be unequivocal, I would rather have 5 years of a deep depression and and come out the other side with a free enterprise capitalistic country, than have only 5 months of a minor recession and come out the other side in a Socialist/Marxist/Fascist country that Obama wants.

The only people that die from a recession are those that kill themselves, whereas those enslaved by socialism must fight it for generations

I fervently hope that Obama and the socialists he represents do fail, totally and completely.

Cameron

sjc3081

03-02-09, 17:33

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 17:35

And for the record I dont suck rush's dick like you are making it sound. I dont agree with everything he says because he can at times be radical. I just agree with him on this issue.

I'm sorry if that's what it seemed like I was implying that.

It just seems that one cannot criticize Rush Limbaugh without being accused of being in league with Obama-rama.

twodollarbill

03-02-09, 17:41

It just seems that one cannot criticize Rush Limbaugh without being accused of being in league with Obama-rama.

perfectly said........

Safetyhit

03-02-09, 17:41

This is like watching a dog chase it's tail. Enough already. :rolleyes:

John is not a socialist, that is more than clear. His words are being distorted to the same ridiculous extent that we see so often here when it comes to emotional topics like this. He doesn't want the country to suffer because Obama is president. Therefore, John is not the devil incarnate. As well, that in itself in no way specifically means John wants socialism. To say otherwise is to distort fact. Obama can attempt to bring the economy back without going totally socialist if he chooses to. Time will tell.

And yes, sometimes Rush and Hannity are over the top. I am on their side, but they often see my fellow Republicans through rose colored glasses, and their bias is glaring as well as discrediting.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 17:44

I distinctly remember Mr. Limbaugh loudly criticizing President Bush on MANY occasions....and I rarely listen to the man's program.

Similarly I distinctly remember Mr. Limbaugh loudly supporting President Bush on many occasions...and I rarely listen to the man's program.

That socialist radar appears to only work intermittently. I never heard Limbaugh call President Bush or any of the House/Senate republicans socialists, even though that is clearly what they were.

This of course explains why Obama has been so successful in the public eye saying..."oh well you should have seen what Bush did".

The media being friendly to Obama has very little to do with Bush stepping on his own (and our) dick. I wish Rush had been a little more clairvoyant in that regard.

He might have enjoyed a bit more credibility.

PS. FDR failed to stack the court. In spite of the friendly media that saw through his attempt at assuming dictatorial powers. As you say Matthews et al is less likely to be swayed by this.

John_Wayne777

03-02-09, 17:59

Similarly I distinctly remember Mr. Limbaugh loudly supporting President Bush on many occasions...and I rarely listen to the man's program.

You speak as if Mr. Bush was a universal evil. He was not.

While I strongly disagree with many of the things the man did as President, there were times when he was right. I remember Mr. Limbaugh taking issue with Mr. Bush on things like CFR or expanding the medicare prescription drug benefit, but supporting Mr. Bush on other matters where he was doing the right thing. (Tax cuts, national security, etc.)

That socialist radar appears to only work intermittently. I never heard Limbaugh call President Bush or any of the House/Senate republicans socialists, even though that is clearly what they were.

I distinctly remember Mr. Limbaugh saying, in reference to the prescription drug fiasco:

"What good does it do to win elections when we're just going to govern like the democrats?"

I suppose some points should be deducted because he didn't work the word "socialist" in there, right?

The media being friendly to Obama has very little to do with Bush stepping on his own (and our) dick. I wish Rush had been a little more clairvoyant in that regard.

I beg to differ. The rampant media bias has an effect on how the public perceives things. Witness the 1995 government shutdown. Media coverage matters...and when the media relentlessly beats the drum for policy X it places pressure on politicians to support X. The media was in the tank for Obama...but long before that the media was the PR wing of the democratic party and the liberal movement in general. I remember Gingrich and Daschle being on a PBS news show and I remember Daschle asking Gingrich why he and the Republicans wanted to "dirty the air, dirty the water, and destroy our planet" (exact quote) Gingrich looked at the PBS airhead hosting this fiasco and asked "Are you serious?"....and yet there was absolutely no critical examination of Daschle's nonsensical assertions whatsoever. The media accepts what liberals say at face value. Meanwhile everything Sarah Palin ever said in her life was subjected to unbelievable levels of scrutiny. Unable to cope with this, many republicans folded.

I distinctly remember Limbaugh being one of the few voices that insisted on holding to conservative ideas and principles and ignoring the drumbeat from the media and the beltway elites and pointing out how to fight this pervasive bais.

PS. FDR failed to stack the court.

...and yet he still got what he wanted. The court became a rubber stamp because his attempt to obliterate an entire branch of the government almost succeeded. In historical discussions of FDR you rarely hear ANYONE put together things like his court packing fiasco, his internment of the Japanese, or his other blatantly out of control behaviors to paint a real picture of his legacy.

Rider

03-02-09, 18:00

Rider, you're obviously NOT paying your fair share of taxes.

The best way to cut medical costs is get rid of the 'ambulance chaser'.

Wasteful spending programs like ACORN?:mad:

And OH, by the way. Has anyone mentioned that we haven't been hit again (yet)?

Bob

C'mon dude, you have no right to say I am not paying my fair share of taxes. I have been working and paying taxes since I was a 9 year old paperboy and I have never taken a dime from the government. Like the rest of us, I feel overtaxed and that we are most likely gonna get screwed out of all the Soc Security money they should have let us keep in the first place.

I am not a rich guy with an offshore tax free secret bank account who cries about paying high taxes or a bum with no income along for the free ride. I am a joe average wage earner who watches his pennies wisely.

Also, don't put words in my mouth - I dont support ACORN at all, I don't think everything Bush did was a failure and I am not a lawyer.

Everything I wrote about would probably be a good thing, if it gets done right whether it was a Republican or Democrat doing it. Re-read it and stick to the facts. Disagree or not but dont insult me with tax cracks and jabs about liberal organizations I have nothing but contempt for.

No need for the insults Dirt. Have fun, learn something by actually reading other peoples opinions or play keyboard bully with folks who you don't agree with all you want, I gotta get back to WORK.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 19:09

JW.

I disagree relevant to Rush but I do understand where you're coming from.

I appreciate that you've endeavored to respond through honest intellectual disagreement, and I confess that I don't have all the answers.

I think conservatism can chose a better spokesmen to refresh its intellectual origins, but that's only an opnion.

-J

mmckown

03-02-09, 19:26

John_Wayne777

03-02-09, 19:49

Safetyhit

03-02-09, 19:54

I too, hope the President fails. I could not more strongly oppose the hard left turn toward socialism that the President is orchastrating.

Honesty is no longer appreciated. Rush is simply stating the truth. Obamas policies had better fail or we are on the way toward the United Socialist States of America.

When did it become Un American to say I hope communisim fails and that a free market capitalist society succeeds?

Your last sentence is truth distortion at it's worst. The rest is more of the same.

Back on topic, has anyone here considered for just a moment how many socialist oriented policies Obama would have implemented if we were not in this disastrous mess? As a Republican, I simply ask if it is fair to judge his actions today against those that he might implement at a better time.

In other words, can it only be that he is looking to socialize the country because he is evil and a communist? Is it possible that this is simply his flawed defense mechanism as a misguided democrat?

thopkins22

03-02-09, 20:09

In other words, can it only be that he is looking to socialize the country because he is evil and a communist? Is it possible that this is simply his flawed defense mechanism as a misguided democrat?

I don't think he's really much farther to the left than GWB. I think without our current situation he would've been a president very similar to Clinton.

However, we are where we are, he's increasing government as fast as he can, and the best the Republican party can give us is Rush and Hannity? The best CPAC can do is complain that the guy wasn't born here? Then they put that Joe Plumber guy on stage again(after his "excellent" contribution to the election)?

I'm closer and closer to just signing up with the Libertarian Party. Even if they never win and my vote never counts, at least I won't be associated with this current batch of clowns.

mmckown

03-02-09, 20:11

Your last sentence is truth distortion at it's worst. The rest is more of the same.

Back on topic, has anyone here considered for just a moment how many socialist oriented policies Obama would have implemented if we were not in this disastrous mess? As a Republican, I simply ask if it is fair to judge his actions today against those that he might implement at a better time.

In other words, can it only be that he is looking to socialize the country because he is evil and a communist? Is it possible that this is simply his flawed defense mechanism as a misguided democrat?

Nice of you to attack my statement with no substansive arguement. I truely appreciate it:rolleyes:

John_Wayne777

03-02-09, 20:13

Back on topic, has anyone here considered for just a moment how many socialist oriented policies Obama would have implemented if we were not in this disastrous mess?

One can examine his rhetoric prior to the current economic problems and compare it to his current actions and statements...and I dare say you won't find that he's suddenly become more of a liberal.

In fact, if one examines his voting record during his 4.5 minutes as a senator, I dare say that they would discover that this sort of thing is right up his alley.

In other words, can it only be that he is looking to socialize the country because he is evil and a communist? Is it possible that this is simply his flawed defense mechanism as a misguided democrat?

Liberals disagree with the very notion of America. Yes, they are "misguided", but that word indicates that we should pity them as we would pity someone who was born developmentally disabled. They are out to remake America in THEIR image. If anyone doubts this, simply examine the opinions of liberal jurists or policy proposals from liberal academics and politicians.

The crisis might be emboldening Obama to reach farther than he would reach if everything was just peachy, but that's a matter of political reality and not core philosophy.

If it were up to Obama there would be no concealed carry. There would be DC style gun prohibitions across the nation. He's stated his support for both of those things. The fact that he's not openly pursuing them right now (although I don't believe that for a second given his appointments) doesn't mean he's suddenly become a moderate on the issue or seen the error of his ways.

Philosophically he hates guns. If he has the chance he will ban them.

Philisophically he (and other liberals) hate speech they disagree with. Given the opportunity, they ban it.

Philosophically liberals hate free enterprise. Given the opportunity they punish it.

Safetyhit

03-02-09, 20:19

Nice of you to attack my statement with no substansive arguement. I truely appreciate it:rolleyes:

Ok, how's this...

When and where did anyone here say it was anti-American to be against communism? Also, when and where did anyone say they don't want a free market to succeed in the United States?

Think before commenting, for accuracy purposes.

scottryan

03-02-09, 20:36

If Obama and his policies fail, what happens to the US?

We will stay free of more socialism.

scottryan

03-02-09, 20:44

Yeah it is Rush's fault,,,, whatever. Rush is absolutely right and those that don't get it are a big part of the problem.

Exactly

These people are the reason why the right is divided and why we lost the election.

OH58D

03-02-09, 20:47

Damn, this is one hot thread. Ol' Rush sure generates some strong feelings.

I am an old Reagan Conservative. Back in 1976 my parents were big Republican operatives and I got to eat Dinner with former governor Reagan; I still have my photo taken with him on 27 May 1976.

Limbaugh is the only Conservative with the largest megaphone that has the Balls to take a stand, on anything these days. Sure, he blows a lot of hot air, but he also articulates the Conservative position with total clarity.

I have a dilema; I swore an oath when I received my 2nd Lt. bars back in 1981 and it's hard for me to come to grips we have a President that I cannot support. Obama is a pure socialist with borderline marxist tendencies. He is taking this economy on the express elevator to hell, and fast. I will not support his socialist agenda and I wish this will fail.

I have relatives in Sweden, and to understand what Obama's America would look like, look to Sweden. If you make @ $50,000 per year, your tax rate there ranges between 57%-62%. That is not acceptable.

Obama promised change, and he wasn't lying. By time he sends our economy into the toilet and rebuilds it into his socialist utopia, you won't recognize the place.

OH58D

scottryan

03-02-09, 20:52

Some good one's (if he/they/us can get it done right and without too much thievery)-

Get Americans working by re-building the roads, bridges, train tracks and schools etc
Education tax breaks for college

Both left wing ideals.

Publics works project to create jobs didn't work during the Great Depression and it won't work now.

Taxes breaks for college? How about lowering tuition?

Safetyhit

03-02-09, 20:55

Exactly

These people are the reason why the right is divided and why we lost the election.

Who are "these people"? Perhaps you would assume I voted for Obama now? You have no clue as to how uninformed your baseless statements are, my friend.

Blind loyalty can be the most dangerous and counter-productive, at least in my humble opinion. Therefore, I try my best to display none under any circumstance. If Obama is a full blown socialist, rather than an individual reacting poorly to a terrible circumstance, time will show that. I don't doubt it is possible, but I also don't think it has been proven to the stated extent.

scottryan

03-02-09, 20:58

I get the feeling that someone here is a closet 'socialist'!:mad:

Bob

Correct

OH58D

03-02-09, 21:05

"If Obama is a full blown socialist, rather than an individual reacting poorly to a terrible circumstance, time will show that".

Do some research on Obama; read his books, look at his voting record in the Illinois State House, look at his voting record in D.C. Read why he found Saul "the Red" Alinsky so interesting. Look at the group Public Allies he helped co-found and the heavy dose of marxism provided in that 13 month training program for Community Organizers.

I have studied Obama with everything I can get my hands on. I have no doubt he is a socialist, the question is whether he is a borderline marxist. I am literally stunned at how little people know about this guy, and yet 65 million people gave him their trust.

OH58D

Safetyhit

03-02-09, 21:06

Correct

What a joke. :rolleyes:

Hysteria has no place here. I hope so, anyway.

scottryan

03-02-09, 21:07

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 21:08

Safetyhit

03-02-09, 21:12

Do some research on Obama; read his books, look at his voting record in the Illinois State House, look at his voting record in D.C. Read why he found Saul "the Red" Alinsky so interesting. Look at the group Public Allies he helped co-found and the heavy dose of marxism provided in that 13 month training program for Community Organizers.

I have studied Obama with everything I can get my hands on. I have no doubt he is a socialist, the question is whether he is a borderline marxist. I am literally stunned at how little people know about this guy, and yet 65 million people gave him their trust.

OH58D

I completely agree that most voted for him due to either ignorance or misguided guilt. That doesn't mean that everything you have heard and read is true, but it also doesn't mean we shouldn't be watching closely just in case.

scottryan

03-02-09, 21:12

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a stauncher critic of Obama and his background than Safetyhit.

Do not confuse criticism of Rush Limbaugh with endorsement, tacit or otherwise, of Obama/Bush big government economics.

You are more concerned about Rush than Obama enough to start a thread about it.

You do not understand the context of Rush.

You and people like you are the reason the Republican party is weak, why we had the moderate John McCain as our nominee, and why we lost the election.

You are offended that someone on the right actually has the balls to stand up for the right's ideals.

For every person on the right that confronts the left, the leftists have 10 that confront the right.

We have been too passive and now we are in this problem.

JLM

03-02-09, 21:14

Walt Williams anyone?

OH58D

03-02-09, 21:14

rightwingmaniac

03-02-09, 21:15

Left Sig

03-02-09, 21:16

I've never been a fan of Rush. He's a blowhard and a buffoon, and I agree that we don't need him on our side anymore than the Democrats need Al Franken. I like Ann Coulter a little better because she is blunt, politically incorrect, and just funnier overall. But they are both political entertainers and should not be the voice of conservatives in America. On talk radio, I like Dennis Miller and Neil Boortz best. Glenn Beck says some good things, but he's just talking out of his ass too much of the time.

Last night on CNN I heard the DL Hughley and Michael Stone discussion, and someone else on the show, or on a followup discussion, accused Rush of being a racist. As soon as I heard that, I realized the new strategy (or is it the same old strategy?) is to marginalize all dissenters with the "racist" label. Obama doesn't have to do it, his supporters will do it for him.

The realization I have been fighting for the last few weeks that I have finally come to accept is that we have reached a point where a majority of US citizens fail to understand the principles this country was founded upon, and fail to understand the bill of rights and what it means, and doesn't mean. We are a nation of misguided but well intentioned fools who simply don't remember what America was supposed to be.

It's no longer about mandating equality of opportunity, but letting individual performance determine the results. We have reached to point where the average citizen wants to mandate equality of outcomes. We want the rewards without the risks. We want guarantees instead of uncertainties, and are willing to let the government control more of our lives in return for those guarantees.

I honestly believe a lot of people have no clue that what they want is the antithesis of our founding principles. In their zeal to make America "better" they will abandon that which made us great in the first place - economic freedom. The fact that they cannot see these simple truths is baffling to me. Our national success in the 20th century did not occur because of "progressive" governmental policies. It occurred in spite of those policies because the power of market based economic freedom overcame such limitations.

My fear is that Obama will get some of his socialist programs implemented and the economy will recover enough to stabilize in the next year or two. He will claim success and get re-elected, but unemployment will still remain high and economic growth, though positive, will be minimal for a long time due to the lack of economic incentives. The taxing of the "rich" will drive more investment dollars overseas, and we will go deeper and deeper into debt to pay the tab for everything. There will not be another great depression to shock us back to reality, just a decade of malaise and a gradual decline in our world position until we are no different than the UK.

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 21:17

You are more concerned about Rush than Obama enough to start a thread about it.

You do not understand the context of Rush.

You and people like you are the reason the Republican party is weak, why we had the moderate John McCain as our nominee, and why we lost the election.

You are offended that someone on the right actually has the balls to stand up for the right's ideals.

For every person on the right that confronts the left, the leftists have 10 that confront the right.

We have been too passive and now we are in this problem.

It's you that fails to understand. You certainly don't understand the context of Rush, especially if you blame McCain for Bush's failures.

I wonder how many dittoheads have actually read a single book on conservative philosophy?

Conservatism used to be about intellect and reason.

It's been usurped by a demogogue whose adherents can't bear to have their messiah challenged.

All in all it reminds me of some Obama supporters.

Safetyhit

03-02-09, 21:22

You are more concerned about Rush than Obama enough to start a thread about it.

This is simplistic thinking at it's best. Ever heard the term "see the forest through the trees"? The mob mentality here can be frightening, for lack of a better description.

Scott, you are unjustifiably stepping on folks tonight with your goofy statements. Stop with the hit and run tactic and engage someone directly with logic for once that you find fault with.

Us Obama supporters are here...

Gutshot John

03-02-09, 21:23

"Do not confuse criticism of Rush Limbaugh with endorsement, tacit or otherwise, of Obama/Bush big government economics."

Gutshot John, I am not into name-calling and I appreciate your opinion. I must ask, is there any current Conservative Voice you care to name that you can agree with?

This is a legitimate question because there are so few Conservative voices now that have the reach that Limbaugh has.

OH58D

Sure, Russell Kirk. John Randolph, Edmund Burke.

There are a few others, but all in all no one person has formed my conservative beliefs.

It's been a process of reading and understanding. Something I've never heard Rush talk about even once. Conservatism isn't a popularity contest and if it is, Limbaugh is losing. He excites a base that has little broad appeal outside of his audience. How many conservatives in this thread alone have disagreed me while saying "I don't really listen to Rush but..."? Rush clearly doesn't speak for all conservatives and to enforce adherence to Rush dogma as a conservative shibboleth is to ignore the basic tenets of conservatism.

Left Sig

03-02-09, 21:30

John,

The Republican Party under Michael Stone is going to move away from the right and further abandon traditional conservative principles to better appeal to the centrists who got Obama elected.

It's not about principles, it's about marketing. We will become more socialist as a country because we have reached a critical mass of citizens who want it that way. The Republicans will still be on the other end making sure we don't go to far too quickly, but make no mistake they are still going along for the ride.

Conservatism as we used to know it is dead, and Rush is shouting from the deck of the sinking ship. His fans are ignoring the fact that they are being left behind without lifeboats...

madisonsfinest

03-02-09, 21:34

You might not agree with his policies, but to "name call" and say he's a dunce sounds pretty ignorant to me. He must have gotten to where he is strictly by luck, and chance. I don't believe the Republican party is the party of conservatism like many claim it is. If these so called conservatives really cared about their Ideals than I doubt they could truly back the Republican Party. There are more conservative options out there, and as long as people continue to vote Republican for the hope of conservatism, the more things will just stay the same.....It seems to me that Hannity just tows the party line, and the same with Rush...... Flame away ;)

Safetyhit

03-02-09, 21:37

Conservatism as we used to know it is dead, and Rush is shouting from the deck of the sinking ship. His fans are ignoring the fact that they are being left behind without lifeboats...

If I may speak on my own behalf, I would respectfully disagree with this. Just because I personally don't blindly agree with everything Rush says, or maybe the way he says it, doesn't mean I don't hold true conservative ideals. It also certainly doesn't mean that I don't agree with him most of the time, because in fact I do.

But again, blind loyalty is bad.

scottryan

03-02-09, 21:54

John,

Conservatism as we used to know it is dead, and Rush is shouting from the deck of the sinking ship. His fans are ignoring the fact that they are being left behind without lifeboats...

Why did every ballot initiative around the country go overwhelmingly for conservatism last November, then?

scottryan

03-02-09, 21:55

especially if you blame McCain for Bush's failures.

Huh? What?

Palmguy

03-02-09, 21:57

Glenn Beck says some good things, but he's just talking out of his ass too much of the time.

How so?

Last night on CNN I heard the DL Hughley and Michael Stone discussion, and someone else on the show, or on a followup discussion, accused Rush of being a racist. As soon as I heard that, I realized the new strategy (or is it the same old strategy?) is to marginalize all dissenters with the "racist" label. Obama doesn't have to do it, his supporters will do it for him.
\

People in this thread are being marginalized in much the same way as being dittohead parrots who have never read a book and don't do much in the way of individual critical thinking.

Your last sentence is truth distortion at it's worst. The rest is more of the same.

Back on topic, has anyone here considered for just a moment how many socialist oriented policies Obama would have implemented if we were not in this disastrous mess? As a Republican, I simply ask if it is fair to judge his actions today against those that he might implement at a better time.

In other words, can it only be that he is looking to socialize the country because he is evil and a communist? Is it possible that this is simply his flawed defense mechanism as a misguided democrat?

The socialist agenda existed long before this particular situation, and there is zero evidence to suggest that Obama would be some free-market capitalist in it's absence. Quite the opposite in fact. The entire question is academic anyways; everything about his life from youth to present suggests socialist/leftist/marxist leanings, there is no parallel universe that we can switch to where the present reality isn't, and it's not going away anytime soon.

I completely agree that most voted for him due to either ignorance or misguided guilt. That doesn't mean that everything you have heard and read is true, but it also doesn't mean we shouldn't be watching closely just in case.

Just in case? :rolleyes: Have you been paying attention? How many more giant red flashing signs do you need?

scottryan

03-02-09, 21:58

Scott, you are unjustifiably stepping on folks tonight with your goofy statements. Stop with the hit and run tactic and engage someone directly with logic for once that you find fault with.

You are just basically pulling an ARFCOM move and trying to debate my existence being here instead of admitting the OP has a problem with someone on our side actually getting in the left's face instead of acting passive or taking me on.

Left Sig

03-02-09, 21:59

If I may speak on my own behalf, I would respectfully disagree with this. Just because I personally don't blindly agree with everything Rush says, or maybe the way he says it, doesn't mean I don't hold true conservative ideals. It also certainly doesn't mean that I don't agree with him most of the time, because in fact I do.

But again, blind loyalty is bad.

I didn't mean that Rush or you for that matter are not true conservatives, though you may disagree on various issues. What I meant was that real conservatism is dying. Whoever is holding the banner, be it Rush or whomever else rises to the occasion, is preaching to a choir that is getting smaller and smaller.

Republicans will continue to abandon conservative ideals and become "progressive lite", if only to win back votes so they can be in charge again in the future. They will simply be the voice of caution holding back the Democrats and slowing, but not stopping, the move to socialism.

The country has reached critical mass for socialized medical care. It is going to happen because the majority of Americans want it to happen. I'm not sure how the rest of it will go down, but the medical thing is a done deal.

Rider

03-02-09, 22:00

Both left wing ideals.

Publics works project to create jobs didn't work during the Great Depression and it won't work now.

Taxes breaks for college? How about lowering tuition?

So General Eisenhower was a leftist? That is interesting. He built the interstates which now need re-building and expanding. Private industry cant be relied upon to undertake that sort of project without money from us the taxpayers. Construction is not a political issue, its an investment in the US's future which pays for itself with increased productivity. You also left out the fact that I said we need to make sure that AMERICANS not immigrants get these infrastructure jobs. But then including that would not have fit your agenda would it?

Tax breaks help us pay for our kids education while lowering our taxes! How are you going to lower tuition? Universities decide what they want to charge for the product just like McDonalds prices their burgers. Or were you suggesting that Obama should set tuition prices for us? Sounds pretty much like socialism there ;)

scottryan

03-02-09, 22:04

So General Eisenhower was a leftist? That is interesting. He built the interstates which now need re-building and expanding. Private industry cant be relied upon to undertake that sort of project without money from us the taxpayers. Construction is not a political issue, its an investment in the US's future which pays for itself with increased productivity. You also left out the fact that I said we need to make sure that AMERICANS not immigrants get these infrastructure jobs. But then including that would not have fit your agenda would it?

Eisenhower was not that conservative.

All the public works project that were suppose to give work to people during the great depression did nothing to boost the economy.

Tax breaks help us pay for our kids education while lowering our taxes! How are you going to lower tuition? Universities decide what they want to charge for the product just like McDonalds prices their burgers. Or were you suggesting that Obama should set tuition prices for us? Sounds pretty much like socialism there ;)

You never hear the left wanting to lower tuition, its always "tax breaks" or "vouchers" or "credits" ie. welfare.

Lowing tuition via university budget cuts is a right wing ideal

scottryan

03-02-09, 22:05

double post

khc3

03-02-09, 22:06

So General Eisenhower was a leftist? That is interesting. He built the interstates which now need re-building and expanding. Private industry cant be relied upon to undertake that sort of project without money from us the taxpayers. Construction is not a political issue, its an investment in the US's future which pays for itself with increased productivity. You also left out the fact that I said we need to make sure that AMERICANS not immigrants get these infrastructure jobs. But then including that would not have fit your agenda would it?

Tax breaks help us pay for our kids education while lowering our taxes! How are you going to lower tuition? Universities decide what they want to charge for the product just like McDonalds prices their burgers. Or were you suggesting that Obama should set tuition prices for us? Sounds pretty much like socialism there ;)

First, the Interstate highway System was, primarily, a strategic military project. It wasn't a vote buying payoff scheme for big city mayors and govt employees unions.

Secondly, if you think colleges set tuitions like McDonald's prices burgers, you need remedial economics instruction.

Safetyhit

03-02-09, 22:07

Just in case? :rolleyes: Have you been paying attention? How many more giant red flashing signs do you need?

My point is that is it possible to accurately judge his overall stance based upon his actions at this dire time in our nations history? I know he is against guns and is far left, and I despise that. But...are his actions regarding the economy stupid, democratic reactions rather than diabolical, communism establishing maneuvers?

Yes, I am watching closely on this particular issue before rushing to judgment. That's what any prudent individual should do on any issue.

Palmguy

03-02-09, 22:08

Tax breaks help us pay for our kids education while lowering our taxes! How are you going to lower tuition? Universities decide what they want to charge for the product just like McDonalds prices their burgers. Or were you suggesting that Obama should set tuition prices for us? Sounds pretty much like socialism there ;)

There is reasonable evidence out there that the federal aid structure for college tuition is directly contributing to the increases in college tuition. Yep, the program which is ostensibly in place to make college more affordable. Sound familiar? Any similarities to government intervention in the housing market which just popped? It should seem similar.

Palmguy

03-02-09, 22:09

My point is that is it possible to accurately judge his overall stance based upon his actions at this dire time in our nations history? I know he is against guns and is far left, and I despise that. But...are his actions regarding the economy stupid, democratic reactions rather than diabolical, communism establishing maneuvers?

Yes, I am watching closely on this particular issue before rushing to judgment. That's what any prudent individual should do on any issue.

My point is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Left Sig

03-02-09, 22:10

Why did every ballot initiative around the country go overwhelmingly for conservatism last November, then?

Can you be more specific? The one's banning gay marriage do speak of social conservatism, but whether or not we allow gays to marry has little to do with the economic future of this country and stemming the march to socialism.

How so?

Glenn Beck is uneducated and somewhat ignorant of the complexities of many issues he speaks about. He preaches common sense, but in many cases his common sense is nothing more than common ignorance. I enjoy listening to him when I am in the car and his show is on because he is entertaining. Sometimes he gets things right, but other times he's pretty far off. Boortz is the only one who really has a firm grasp on what he is advocating, but I don't agree with him about the fair tax.

Safetyhit

03-02-09, 22:12

You are just basically pulling an ARFCOM move and trying to debate my existence being here instead of admitting the OP has a problem with someone on our side actually getting in the left's face instead of acting passive or taking me on.

There is not one word of truth here. And I certainly have no issue with anyone "getting in the left's face". I do it all the time to an extent here in N.J. ;)

scottryan

03-02-09, 22:13

Can you be more specific? The one's banning gay marriage do speak of social conservatism, but whether or not we allow gays to marry has little to do with the economic future of this country and stemming the march to socialism.

Conservatives won on almost every ballot initiative in every state.

Affirmative action was voted down in Nebraska.

There were some other ones in Missouri.

If you were watching FOX on election night you couldn't have missed them.

Left Sig

03-02-09, 22:18

There is reasonable evidence out there that the federal aid structure for college tuition is directly contributing to the increases in college tuition. Yep, the program which is ostensibly in place to make college more affordable. Sound familiar? Any similarities to government intervention in the housing market which just popped? It should seem similar.

Private colleges should be able to charge whatever they want. Let the market determine their fate. But I do think that states need to start putting tuition caps on state schools, or at least index tuition to inflation or some other objective measure.

I do agree that the ability of students to get considerable tuition loans backed by the Federal Government, regardless of the earning potential of their degree program, encourages tuition to go up to the limits allowed in the loans. Many students who do not major in a reasonably lucrative field have no prayer of paying back the loans.

scottryan

03-02-09, 22:19

Yes, I am watching closely on this particular issue before rushing to judgment. That's what any prudent individual should do on any issue.

There is not one word of truth here. And I certainly have no issue with anyone "getting in the left's face". I do it all the time to an extent here in N.J.

If you knew what was going on you shouldn't have to "reserve judgment"

Here is a specific example:

Part of the bailout requires public works projects to use American steel. This will artificially drive up the cost of American steel and artificially boost the American steel industry when compared to the global steel market. Other industries will buy steel from other countries at market value.

This creates the first problem. Those contracts will be lost.

Second problem: After these public works projects are done and the American steel market goes back to the actual market, what will happen to all those steel mill jobs created in that artificially booming time? Thats right, they will be lost.

10MMGary

03-02-09, 22:19

I don't think he's really much farther to the left than GWB. I think without our current situation he would've been a president very similar to Clinton.

However, we are where we are, he's increasing government as fast as he can, and the best the Republican party can give us is Rush and Hannity? The best CPAC can do is complain that the guy wasn't born here? Then they put that Joe Plumber guy on stage again(after his "excellent" contribution to the election)?

I'm closer and closer to just signing up with the Libertarian Party. Even if they never win and my vote never counts, at least I won't be associated with this current batch of clowns.

For Pete's sake people Rush & Hannity have never held a political office that I am aware of and they are not running for one now. They are broadcasters commentators and entertainers. I say thank God for them being that the big three networks and the other two cable networks are totally in the tank for anything Obama or liberal.

Also everyone needs to stop confusing a Republican with a Conservative they are far from always being one and the same.

scottryan

03-02-09, 22:21

Palmguy

03-02-09, 22:25

Glenn Beck is uneducated and somewhat ignorant of the complexities of many issues he speaks about. He preaches common sense, but in many cases his common sense is nothing more than common ignorance. I enjoy listening to him when I am in the car and his show is on because he is entertaining. Sometimes he gets things right, but other times he's pretty far off. Boortz is the only one who really has a firm grasp on what he is advocating, but I don't agree with him about the fair tax.

Yes, Glenn Beck is uneducated. He'll be the first to admit it as well. He's done a pretty damn good job of getting close to people who are and who know what the hell they are talking about. He has also done a pretty damn good job of reading, a lot, and learning for himself. Has he been wrong on stuff? Sure, but having listened to him for a long time, since before he "made it big", I would not call that "talking out of his ass". He legitimately works to research and learn about what he talks about on his show.

Palmguy

03-02-09, 22:26

Also happened in medicine. When the govt got involved, health care costs started skyrocketing.

Absolutely right...another great example. If you think something is expensive now, wait until it's free.

Safetyhit

03-02-09, 22:32

If you knew what was going on you shouldn't have to "reserve judgment"

Here is a specific example:

Part of the bailout requires public works projects to use American steel. This will artificially drive up the cost of American steel and artificially boost the American steel industry when compared to the global steel market. Other industries will buy steel from other countries at market value.

This creates the first problem. Those contracts will be lost.

Second problem: After these public works projects are done and the American steel market goes back to the actual market, what will happen to all those steel mill jobs created in that artificially booming time? Thats right, they will be lost.

I am not saying there are not tremendous flaws in his plans. Never insinuated this in any way. You are missing the main point again.

Left Sig

03-02-09, 22:34

Conservatives won on almost every ballot initiative in every state.

Affirmative action was voted down in Nebraska.

There were some other ones in Missouri.

If you were watching FOX on election night you couldn't have missed them.

California voted down affirmative action a decade ago. Care to guess how well the state government has conformed with that one?

I'll concede this point to you.

But I would like to say I am focused on economic conservatism rather than social conservatism. We can argue about abortion, gay rights, gay marriage, allowing bare breasts on broadcast television, and any other social issue forever. But whichever way the country goes, those issues will not result in a fundamental change in the economic structure of our nation. Choosing liberal or conservative economic policies will have a huge effect on our economic future.

It's like right now how Reid and Pelosi are staying away from gun control. They know that if they pull that stunt again it will galvanize a conservative response and potentially stall their agendas and push them out of power. But if they stay away from hot button topics like gun control, we will not reach the critical mass needed to cause a popular revolt against their socialist policies.

FromMyColdDeadHand

03-02-09, 22:37

By Zues, this is getting more posts than Grant's free Bolt Carrier group!

I want Limbaugh to fail, not conservatism to falter. :D

I like Rush, but I think so many people on the right and left forget that he is first and foremost an entertainer, more akin to Howard Stern that Bill Buckley. Plus he has to fill three hours of airtime a day, and keep it fresh for 15 million people a week. Yes he used to more poignant and funny. I listened to him a little today and he talked about his 1.5 hour speech at CPAC. Biden can't go that long with our reinventing history, so if Rush tweeks a few people, so be it.

Rush is Rush, if I had to follow just one it would be Krauthammer. He is the only person that when I disagree with him, I really start to question my position.

scottryan

03-02-09, 22:40

I am not saying there are not tremendous flaws in his plans. Never insinuated this in any way. You are missing the main point again.

What is your main point?

Safetyhit

03-03-09, 08:26

What is your main point?

Your answer lies at post #77, go back and read it if you really want to learn something about what is actually being said here. I am done defending myself to you.

OldNavyGuy

03-03-09, 09:03

Generally speaking I don't like or listen to people like Limbaugh and Hannity. It's not that I don't appreciate someone taking it to liberals and the Obama administration, it's just that often their red meat delivery gets so over-the-top that I'm left sitting there going "Dude...stop being on my side!"

For instance saying that he "hopes the Obama administration fails". Hopes? Why would you hope the country suffers? (you are getting two things mixed up and confused, there is a difference in what you refer to, Hussein failing is different than the country failing, personally i want Hussein to fail so bad he will be removed from office faster than grease thru a goose !) I understand that one may fear the consequences of his actions, but to hope the nation fails (he is NOT hoping the nation fails, he is hoping Husseins agenda fails) smacks so much of the flawed utopianism and societal sabotage usually associated with the left.

If you believe in capitalism and individual liberty then one should KNOW that Obama's foray into Socialism will fail, that if he were to succeed it would be to defy the judgment of thousands of years of human history. So what does hoping Obama fails get you? Be smart, disagree with the policies but HOPE he succeeds while privately knowing that there is no freakin way.

Oppose Obama in good conscience as part of the "loyal" opposition, argue the intellectual perspective that he doesn't hope the Country fails, only that the policies Obama embraces will inevitably result in failure. They cannot work. Oppose him as a matter of conscience and intellect, but don't hope for his failure...weep for it.

While I don't doubt his sincerity, I'm really, really tired of Rush Limbaugh and wish he could just say he is sometimes wrong. A true conservative should be able to acknowledge failure. For the Republican party to embrace Limbaugh as their intellectual rolemodel, is to court electoral defeat for another 20 years. are you sure you are not a liberal democRAT ?? you sure as hell come across as one in this post

Mr. gutshot, you need to be sent to a re-education camp and forced to understand that hoping Hussein fails and the country failing is two entirely different things, i.e.,

do you want him to succeed in banning guns ?? or would you prefer he fails ??

would you prefer the U.S.A. wins on constitutional matters ?? or Hussein wins in destroying the constitution ??

Kaos

03-03-09, 09:13

Here's the thing though, if Obama succeeds...if even for a while...look what socialism/communism/marxism in practice has done to other countries economies and liberties.

Look at Russia...when did they first adopt this? Have they ever recovered?

markm

03-03-09, 09:16

I didn't want to have to point this out but...

Gutshot is a PRO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION guy too! I've never gotten over this fact about him, but I try to peacefully coexist on this site with him.

This is somewhat irrelevant to his Pro Obama stance, but I'm just establishing a profile of his anti American attitudes.

crowkiller

03-03-09, 09:19

I agree with Rush. I think we would be better off if he fails than if he succeeds.

Safetyhit

03-03-09, 09:42

This is somewhat irrelevant to his Pro Obama stance, but I'm just establishing a profile of his anti American attitudes.

Look, John is a big boy and can defend himself I know. He and I have certainly had our share of moments here, as well. But, now describing him as pro-Obama is ignorant and inflammatory. Period.

He simply doesn't want all of us to suffer because a bunch of idiots voted the current president into office. Obama can become unpopular with the public without going full socialist or communist, which is apparently what most here blindly assume he is doing.

If the ****ing economy was not in such a ****ing shambles, he would likely not have implemented any of these drastic measures, nor would he have been able to. I guarantee anyone here that if the economy was stronger he would likely be involved in other things like banning firearms and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. No one here can prove otherwise, they can only speculate. Do so with the facts at hand, not blind paranoia.

By the way, if anyone here starts to call me pro-Obama now, I am jumping out of the computer screen and smacking them.

That's right.......watch it.......

FLGator

03-03-09, 09:44

[/quote]Glenn Beck is uneducated and somewhat ignorant of the complexities of many issues he speaks about. He preaches common sense, but in many cases his common sense is nothing more than common ignorance. I enjoy listening to him when I am in the car and his show is on because he is entertaining. Sometimes he gets things right, but other times he's pretty far off. Boortz is the only one who really has a firm grasp on what he is advocating, but I don't agree with him about the fair tax.[/QUOTE]

William F. Buckley said 30+ years ago that he would rather live in a society governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston phone book than by 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard. Education often only means indoctrination. And this is coming from an M.D.

FlyAndFight

03-03-09, 09:50

That's how YOU have defined it.

Not how I had defined it.

So for the last time, I hope that Obama is successful in restoring American greatness, given his policies I'm skeptical that he can.

I can see that one must never dare to question the immortal Rush, the sainted avatar of Conservatism will lead his army of might dittoheads forward and crush the wicked forces of Obama, thereby creating the pure, Conservative Utopia that will make all our problems go away.

Yeah right. :rolleyes:

I believe that you can agree with many of Rush Limbaugh's points without being considered a "dittohead". Truth be told, I don't like his arrogant demeanor, though. It's a turn-off and a distraction for him.

...

The realization I have been fighting for the last few weeks that I have finally come to accept is that we have reached a point where a majority of US citizens fail to understand the principles this country was founded upon, and fail to understand the bill of rights and what it means, and doesn't mean. We are a nation of misguided but well intentioned fools who simply don't remember what America was supposed to be.

It's no longer about mandating equality of opportunity, but letting individual performance determine the results. We have reached to point where the average citizen wants to mandate equality of outcomes. We want the rewards without the risks. We want guarantees instead of uncertainties, and are willing to let the government control more of our lives in return for those guarantees.
...

Is "American History" even being taught in schools anymore?

...

It's not about principles, it's about marketing. We will become more socialist as a country because we have reached a critical mass of citizens who want it that way...

The majority of voters proved this point.

scottryan

03-03-09, 09:52

This is like watching a dog chase it's tail. Enough already. :rolleyes:

John is not a socialist, that is more than clear. His words are being distorted to the same ridiculous extent that we see so often here when it comes to emotional topics like this. He doesn't want the country to suffer because Obama is president. Therefore, John is not the devil incarnate. As well, that in itself in no way specifically means John wants socialism. To say otherwise is to distort fact. Obama can attempt to bring the economy back without going totally socialist if he chooses to. Time will tell.

Distort?

That is what the OP is doing with Rush's words at the CPAC.

Success for obama = socialism

Period.

markm

03-03-09, 09:59

Look, John is a big boy and can defend himself I know. He and I have certainly had our share of moments here, as well. But, now describing him as pro-Obama is ignorant and inflammatory. Period.

I don't plan to be an enemy of Gutshot. But it is what it is... He's a lib no doubt about it. I don't think my assessment of his libness is at all ignorant. I've read between the lines on his posts and have developed an informed opinion on the guy.

No hard feelings, we just don't agree on political issues.

scottryan

03-03-09, 10:03

Look, John is a big boy and can defend himself I know. He and I have certainly had our share of moments here, as well. But, now describing him as pro-Obama is ignorant and inflammatory. Period.

The OP and you suffer from the "Bill O'Reilly Syndrome" where you might be right leaning but always have to take the high ground and act like you are above it all and just can't admit anyone on our side speaks the truth.

Your type confuses sticking up for your political beliefs to being immoral

Safetyhit

03-03-09, 10:10

Success for obama = socialism

Period.

This is nothing more than your version of the situation. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. Pure speculation.

And remember, I know full well how far to the left he is, and I despise that about the man. But as time goes by it is very possible that as his socialist leaning tactics fail, the ones that the majority of senators congressmen currently endorse via the bailouts, he will either convert back to the right or maybe the center to find the solution that actually works for America (and saves his presidency).

Bottom line: I don't give two shits about who is in office when it comes to the well-being and security of this country. If we go any farther down the toilet, not only will a great many children go hungry here, but our military capability could be compromised as well. That can not happen under any circumstance in today's world.

scottryan

03-03-09, 10:14

Originally Posted by scottryan View Post
Success for obama = socialism

Period.

This is nothing more than your version of the situation. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. Pure speculation.

And remember, I know full well how far to the left he is, and I despise that about the man. But as time goes by it is very possible that as his socialist leaning tactics fail, the ones that the majority of senators congressmen currently endorse via the bailouts, he will either convert back to the right or maybe the center to find the solution that actually works for America (and saves his presidency).

Bottom line: I don't give two shits about who is in office when it comes to the well-being and security of this country. If we go any farther down the toilet, not only will a great many children go hungry here, but our military capability could be compromised as well. That can not happen under any circumstance in today's world.

Nothing more needs to be said about your position with this post of yours. Obama is a socialist. He has been his whole life. You can't admit it or don't believe it. That speaks volumes about yourself.

Safetyhit

03-03-09, 10:16

I don't plan to be an enemy of Gutshot. But it is what it is... He's a lib no doubt about it. I don't think my assessment of his libness is at all ignorant. I've read between the lines on his posts and have developed an informed opinion on the guy.

No hard feelings, we just don't agree on political issues.

Fair enough, but I would say that you are painting him using a very broad brush. That is simply my opinion based on this specific thread and it's content. I see no pro-Obama here, just pro-USA.

scottryan

03-03-09, 10:16

This is nothing more than your version of the situation. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. Pure speculation.

His entire bailout is socialism.

You don't understand economics. You have proven that time and again in this thread.

Palmguy

03-03-09, 10:18

If the ****ing economy was not in such a ****ing shambles, he would likely not have implemented any of these drastic measures, nor would he have been able to. I guarantee anyone here that if the economy was stronger he would likely be involved in other things like banning firearms and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. No one here can prove otherwise, they can only speculate. Do so with the facts at hand, not blind paranoia.

Do so with the facts at hand, not speculation of what might happen in a world that does not exist. It's ridiculous to try to make the point that 'if the world was different, he wouldn't be doing this stuff, and you can't prove otherwise, you can only speculate'. You know what? You can't prove he wouldn't. All evidence about the man says he is a socialist. Regardless, this is all fantasy-land discussion that DOES NOT MATTER. The economy IS in shambles, and he IS implementing these drastic measures, and he DOES have a choice between free-market and socialist ideals.

This is nothing more than your version of the situation. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. Pure speculation.

As is your speculation as to the agenda of the Obama Administration in a strictly theoretical Happy World that does not exist.

And remember, I know full well how far to the left he is, and I despise that about the man. But as time goes by it is very possible that as his socialist leaning tactics fail, the ones that the majority of senators congressmen currently endorse via the bailouts, he will either convert back to the right or maybe the center to find the solution that actually works for America (and saves his presidency).

Keep hoping he magically pulls a 180 and changes his fundamental belief structure. The worse things get (and they are getting worse), the harder to the side of totalitarianism and socialism we are going to go with President Obama at the wheel.

Lumpy196

03-03-09, 10:19

So what does hoping Obama fails get you? Be smart, disagree with the policies but HOPE he succeeds while privately knowing that there is no freakin way.

Hoping he fails means he isn't successful in enacting the very policies you say won't work and will cause harm to the country.

That last sentense sounds like a good example of the definition a mental illness, or at the minimum, intellectual dishonesty.

scottryan

03-03-09, 10:20

That is simply my opinion based on this specific thread and it's content. I see no pro-Obama here, just pro-USA.

This has been explained once before in this thread and you didn't understand it the first time.

Wanting obama to succeed is not being pro American. If obama succeeds fixing the economy with socialism, then socialism has been justified which is not what we want. The left can go "see, we told you so" In the end, socialism will fail like it always does.

If obama doesn't succeed in fixing the economy, then he will get voted out and somebody more conservative will take his place.

scottryan

03-03-09, 10:22

Hoping he fails means he isn't successful in enacting the very policies you say won't work and will cause harm to the country.

That last sentense sounds like a good example of the definition a mental illness, or at the minimum, intellectual dishonesty.

The whole underlying issue put very concise.

Safetyhit

03-03-09, 10:22

Nothing more needs to be said about your position with this post of yours. Obama is a socialist. He has been his whole life. You can't admit it or don't believe it. That speaks volumes about yourself.

Here is proof from just my last post that you pay no attention to what you don't want to hear because you are simply hell-bent on being right...

And remember, I know full well how far to the left he is, and I despise that about the man.

Please pay attention. You will seem smarter if you do.

scottryan

03-03-09, 10:24

Here is proof from just my last post that you pay no attention to what you don't want to hear because you are simply hell-bent on being right...

Please pay attention. You will seem smarter if you do.

Once again, you cannot rebut anything I've said about the bailout or the positions you pseudo conservatives take.

All you do is try to debate my existence.

You are trying to tell me how to be "smart"

You are hoping a president succeeds with a policy that you privately admit won't work. What kind of logic is that?

Safetyhit

03-03-09, 10:25

As is your speculation as to the agenda of the Obama Administration in a strictly theoretical Happy World that does not exist.

I never stated nor implied this. Please clarify how you came to this conclusion.

thopkins22

03-03-09, 10:27

So General Eisenhower was a leftist? That is interesting. He built the interstates which now need re-building and expanding. Private industry cant be relied upon to undertake that sort of project without money from us the taxpayers.

Actually the very first coast to coast highway in the United States was entirely funded by private industry. The auto companies built it.

The idea that some things wouldn't happen without a huge federal bureaucracy is a fallacy. If there is a demand for something, the market WILL provide a product. And they'll do it in a more efficient manner.

People use similar arguments about healthcare for poor people, or disaster relief. They say without medicare, how will these people survive? Well, not too long ago there were quite a few charity hospitals. Private practices would often provide services free to those who could not pay. In the early 1900s the city of Galveston rebuilt itself from the ground up without a dime of federal assistance. The sea wall they built successfully fought every storm for 100 years...in fact after Ike, it's still standing.

And yes, while Eisenhower doesn't belong next to Obama on the political spectrum, he was far from the right. In fact very few presidents since our inception as a nation belong on the right. Perhaps it's the nature of the office and those who seek it.

His entire bailout is socialism.

I realize that you weren't talking to me, but so was a HUGE chunk of GWB's presidency. I fail to see how McCain would have been that much different regarding economic/monetary issues. Hell he took time off from his campaign to make sure the bailout passed congress.

scottryan

03-03-09, 10:29

I never stated nor implied this. Please clarify how you came to this conclusion.

Yes you did may times over.

You have stated you are "reserving judgment" hoping Obama will fix this economy with some type of middle of the road or right wing solution.

scottryan

03-03-09, 10:37

I realize that you weren't talking to me, but so was a HUGE chunk of GWB's presidency. I fail to see how McCain would have been that much different regarding economic/monetary issues. Hell he took time off from his campaign to make sure the bailout passed congress.

I completely agree. Bush is not a conservative and many of his things were also socialism.

However, A McCain bailout package would not have any public works pork in it or hundreds of millions to support all this pet projects the democrats like.

Safetyhit

03-03-09, 10:37

Yes you did may times over.

You have stated you are "reserving judgment" hoping Obama will fix this economy with some type of middle of the road or right wing solution.

I believe we can assume the reference was clearly that I thought Obama and his socialist ideals would create the "happy world", not his currently non-existent capitalist ones.

Keep at it, you'll get there.

And by the way, why do you keep saying I am trying to "debate your existence"?

Second thought...nevermind. :rolleyes:

thopkins22

03-03-09, 10:42

For Pete's sake people Rush & Hannity have never held a political office that I am aware of and they are not running for one now.
Thank god. But my point was that they are often invited as guest speakers, and(right or wrong) seen as spokesmen for the party. I hope that democrats feel the same way about the obnoxious people in their ranks...the Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermans, and Rachel Maddows of the world.

Also everyone needs to stop confusing a Republican with a Conservative they are far from always being one and the same.

Agree, I'm identifying myself less and less as a Republican. Though by Gunshot John's definition I'm not very conservative either...as I think there are drastic changes that need to happen in this country that I don't feel very pragmatic about. I just want those changes to go in the opposite direction of what we're getting.

Palmguy

03-03-09, 10:49

I never stated nor implied this. Please clarify how you came to this conclusion.

Back on topic, has anyone here considered for just a moment how many socialist oriented policies Obama would have implemented if we were not in this disastrous mess? As a Republican, I simply ask if it is fair to judge his actions today against those that he might implement at a better time.

...

If the ****ing economy was not in such a ****ing shambles, he would likely not have implemented any of these drastic measures, nor would he have been able to. I guarantee anyone here that if the economy was stronger he would likely be involved in other things like banning firearms and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. No one here can prove otherwise, they can only speculate.

That's where I get that from. You seem to be wondering if Obama wouldn't have a socialist agenda if everything was peachy right now. My argument is that that doesn't matter, because it ain't; and there is no evidence to support that assertion.

To answer the bolded question above; yes, it is fair. He has a choice, he is choosing socialism (which really isn't or shouldn't be shocking).

I believe we can assume the reference was clearly that I thought Obama and his socialist ideals would create the "happy world", not his currently non-existent capitalist ones.

No, I was saying that it seemed what you were wondering if Obama would have those socialist ideals in a "happy world".

FLGator

03-03-09, 11:09

Rahm Emmanual said that you should never let a crisis go to waste. The economic situation is a great opportunity to push this agenda but the agenda would be the same regardless.

By the way, the black rifle club does not have a lot of friends. I don't see any reason to marginalize a powerful one like Rush Limbaugh.

Safetyhit

03-03-09, 11:31

No, I was saying that it seemed what you were wondering if Obama would have those socialist ideals in a "happy world".

Palmguy, you seem to be a sensible man. That said, I have to believe that you know what I really mean yet are finding fault just to do so. This often happens here.

I clearly stated that his socialist actions are likely magnified several times over due to the economic crisis. What we are seeing today would likely not be what we would see if the crisis did not exist. As well, we can't ignore the fact that most of the senate and house are for the bailouts. This man is not acting alone to everyone's horror, many in high places are with him.

Does this leave an opening for an evil, socialist agenda? I suppose it does. Will that agenda work, I doubt it and certainly hope it doesn't. That said...

Do I want the US to suffer as a result of his presidency, possibly at catastrophic levels?: Absolutely not.

Do I hope he learns from the past and gets capitalism, with all it's flaws, back up and running strong after realizing it is the best overall way to go?: Hell yes.

Have a great day. :)

Palmguy

03-03-09, 11:57

Do I want the US to suffer as a result of his presidency, possibly at catastrophic levels?: Absolutely not.

Do I hope he learns from the past and gets capitalism, with all it's flaws, back up and running strong after realizing it is the best overall way to go?: Hell yes.

Roger. Fair enough.

scottryan

03-03-09, 12:17

Do I hope he learns from the past and gets capitalism, with all it's flaws, back up and running strong after realizing it is the best overall way to go?: Hell yes.

Have a great day. :)

Learns from the past? He has been a socialist his entire life. His father was a borderline communist and his mother a wacko.

You are still hoping he "gets it"

This is exactly the point we are trying to make. You are hoping for some hypothetical perfect solution.

Your are blaming Obama's actions to the economic times we are in, rather than linking his actions to his political orientation.

scottryan

03-03-09, 12:23

And by the way, why do you keep saying I am trying to "debate your existence"?

Second thought...nevermind. :rolleyes:

Because rather engaging me, you are doing what people like the OP do with Rush.

You are mad because I'm confronting you about your views.

Just like the OP is supposedly a "conservative" but gets bent out of shape when a conservative confronts the left.

You are using the same weak tactic against me in this thread.

Safetyhit

03-03-09, 12:29

Learns from the past? He has been a socialist his entire life. His father was a borderline communist and his mother a wacko.

By the past I mean the depression era government spending that did not have the positive effect on the economy that was intended. That is what he could learn from.

By the way, do you really exist?

:cool:

scottryan

03-03-09, 13:01

By the past I mean the depression era government spending that did not have the positive effect on the economy that was intended. That is what he could learn from.

Which he hasn't because we are going down the exact same path.

bill_d

03-03-09, 14:41

target id

standing by...

thanks scott

Safetyhit

03-03-09, 15:38

Which he hasn't because we are going down the exact same path.

For now, we are indeed. And that is an issue. I hope he, the house, and the senate see the err of this path before things get any worse.

scottryan

03-03-09, 15:59

For now, we are indeed. And that is an issue. I hope he, the house, and the senate see the err of this path before things get any worse.

Keep hoping for your hypothetical utopian outcome.

You just can't take the extra step and admit Obama will and should fail. You are kidding yourself, trying to stay above it all.

chadbag

03-03-09, 16:05

Here is the commentary today by Gary Bauer:

"
Tuesday, March 3, 2009

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer

Rush Is Right!

The flap between Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh is the latest in a series involving Republican politicians who have gotten themselves all tied in knots when asked by the liberal media whether or not they agree with Rush’s statement that he hopes President Obama fails. This really should not be that hard to handle. Maybe it’s time to send them all back to remedial political school.

First, the question was a setup, and the sniping only serves the interests of Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama and the radical Left. It’s also straight out of the Left’s playbook, Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” The Democrats are trying to demonize conservatism’s most effective spokesman, and, by distancing themselves from Rush, some Republicans are helping them in that effort.

Limbaugh has made it abundantly clear that he wants America to succeed. But America won’t succeed if government grows to the gargantuan proportions that Obama is proposing. America won’t succeed if success is punished and failure is rewarded. America won’t succeed if taxes are raised during an economic downturn. America won’t succeed if capitalism is attacked and undermined, and if our economy is socialized.

These are defining issues between liberals and conservatives. Of course Rush wants Obama to fail to raise taxes. So do I, and I suspect virtually everyone reading this report does too. Rush wants Obama to fail to socialize health care. So do I. Rush wants Obama to fail to grow the government. So do I. Rush wants Obama to fail in his attempt to demonize success and hard work. So do I. That’s all Steele or any Republican official needs to say.

Second, this coordinated attack on Rush doesn’t pass the straight face test. For the past several years, Harry Reid and his gang hoped not only for George Bush’s failure, they said repeatedly in public that our nation’s war effort against our enemies was failing while blood was being shed on the battlefield. Even now, Barack Obama is unable to admit that the surge succeeded, enabling him to be in the position to draw down our troop levels – without America losing a war!

Republicans should stop attacking other Republicans. Whatever the differences between Rush and Steele or Rush and other Republicans, those differences pale in comparison to the chasm between conservatives and the Democrats. Can we get them out of office instead of forming circular firing squads?
"

Terry

03-04-09, 07:32

I hope BHO fails!
Freedom has calamities, deal with it.
It's better than any alternative.

Business_Casual

03-04-09, 08:16

Jonah Goldberg seems to have figured it out as well:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzFhN2ZkZTAyMjJhOTUwNzU5MTM0ODIyZDY1ZmM0MWM=

M_P

ra2bach

03-04-09, 08:57

Generally speaking I don't like or listen to people like Limbaugh and Hannity. It's not that I don't appreciate someone taking it to liberals and the Obama administration, it's just that often their red meat delivery gets so over-the-top that I'm left sitting there going "Dude...stop being on my side!"

For instance saying that he "hopes the Obama administration fails". Hopes? Why would you hope the country suffers? I understand that one may fear the consequences of his actions, but to hope the nation fails smacks so much of the flawed utopianism and societal sabotage usually associated with the left.

If you believe in capitalism and individual liberty then one should KNOW that Obama's foray into Socialism will fail, that if he were to succeed it would be to defy the judgment of thousands of years of human history. So what does hoping Obama fails get you? Be smart, disagree with the policies but HOPE he succeeds while privately knowing that there is no freakin way.

Oppose Obama in good conscience as part of the "loyal" opposition, argue the intellectual perspective that he doesn't hope the Country fails, only that the policies Obama embraces will inevitably result in failure. They cannot work. Oppose him as a matter of conscience and intellect, but don't hope for his failure...weep for it.

While I don't doubt his sincerity, I'm really, really tired of Rush Limbaugh and wish he could just say he is sometimes wrong. A true conservative should be able to acknowledge failure. For the Republican party to embrace Limbaugh as their intellectual rolemodel, is to court electoral defeat for another 20 years.

so you've bought into it, eh?

CARVILLE, BEGALA, EMANUEL PLOTTED "OPERATION LIMBAUGH" BEGINNING LAST FALL...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 09:12

so you've bought into it, eh?

So you haven't read a word I wrote eh? Thank you for proving my point. That makes any number of people who have done so. One more time...

Conservatism used to be about rationality and pragmatic solutions. No one person founded conservatism and no one person CAN serve as its spokesmen, its avatar or its sole determinant of who is, and who isn't a conservative. There is NO such thing as a "pure" conservative ideology. In fact conservatism has historically rejected any pure ideology, preferring instead to address problems as they are, rather than in how we think they should be.

Conservatism deliberately eschewed demagoguery, and cults of personality as simply a way of inspiring mob rule. That Rush's supporters have accused anyone who might disagree with as "socialists" or as you said a stooge for Carville/Begala, are acting precisely with a mob mentality, being whipped up to be used for a demogogue's interest. This is antithetical to true conservatism.

REAL conservatives aren't so thin-skinned that they can't handle legitimate criticism. Rush on the other hand, tacitly or otherwise, encourages his minions to flood phone banks from any republican who might criticize him. This is not LIBERTY, this is bullying people in a way that makes Carville/Begala proud.

Rush and his supporters would do much better if they realized he's simply edutainment. Conservatives should think for themselves, not let Rush tell them what to think...dittoheads. :rolleyes: I can't believe people think that's a compliment. Russel Kirk is doing half-gainers in his grave.

I also can't believe that all these so-called conservatives, who accuse those that might otherwise agree with them, as socialists. If that's Rush's and the Republican playbook, it's going to be a very long time before they're back in power. It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. Conservatives USED to be about doing the smart thing, even if it didn't always conform to an ideologic ideal.

21st century conservatism is the "word according to Rush" and I'm sorry if I think he's too deeply flawed, both intellectually and morally, to even understand conservatism, let alone define it for a new generation. He's using the language of conservatism to line his pockets, but he's engaging in every tactic of radicalism that true Conservativism detests and ultimately damaging the nation and conservatism as a whole.

Thank you Rush for playing right into liberal hands and all but assuring that Barry O has his way.

Rush's conservatism does no one any good if its adherents can't get elected and implement those policies. Rush speaks a good game about conservatism, but he's forgotten it's primary virtue, pragmatism. Your ideology is worthless if no one will elect you.

mmckown

03-04-09, 09:39

Ok, how's this...

When and where did anyone here say it was anti-American to be against communism? Also, when and where did anyone say they don't want a free market to succeed in the United States?

Think before commenting, for accuracy purposes.

The primary focus of Limbaughs statement is that the policies of the current administration are socialist in nature, contrary to the best long term interests of the country. As such, he is by implication at the very least rooting for the failure of socialist policies. Generally in this country Socialism and Communism are lumped together, and as there are few major differences in application rightly so.

Therefore he is rooting for the success of the capitalist system over the socialist agenda, and the President, among others are labeling it as detremental to the country, therefore Un American, to do so.

Rush is not a leader in the Republican Party. He is a major Conservative voice in this country. Does he do it for entertainment purposes? Yes. However that does not invalidate his arguements. We find ourselves in the state we are in because we have abandoned our base conservative values.

Does Rush over speak the conservative stance? Yes at times he does. However in this instance he is not. Obamas policies are doomed to fail long term. In hoping for a quick failure, one is hoping that we don't waste 10 years trying to make inheriantly flawed policies work (ala FDR) The last time we traveled down this road it took a World War to over come the disasterous policies of a socialist president and administration...

scottryan

03-04-09, 09:49

So you haven't read a word I wrote eh? Thank you for proving my point. That makes any number of people who have done so. One more time...

Conservatism used to be about rationality and pragmatic solutions. No one person founded conservatism and no one person CAN serve as its spokesmen, its avatar or its sole determinant of who is, and who isn't a conservative. There is NO such thing as a "pure" conservative ideology. In fact conservatism has historically rejected any pure ideology, preferring instead to address problems as they are, rather than in how we think they should be.

Conservatism deliberately eschewed demagoguery, and cults of personality as simply a way of inspiring mob rule. That Rush's supporters have accused anyone who might disagree with as "socialists" or as you said a stooge for Carville/Begala, are acting precisely with a mob mentality, being whipped up to be used for a demogogue's interest. This is antithetical to true conservatism.

REAL conservatives aren't so thin-skinned that they can't handle legitimate criticism. Rush on the other hand, tacitly or otherwise, encourages his minions to flood phone banks from any republican who might criticize him. This is not LIBERTY, this is bullying people in a way that makes Carville/Begala proud.

Rush and his supporters would do much better if they realized he's simply edutainment. Conservatives should think for themselves, not let Rush tell them what to think...dittoheads. :rolleyes: I can't believe people think that's a compliment. Russel Kirk is doing half-gainers in his grave.

I also can't believe that all these so-called conservatives, who accuse those that might otherwise agree with them, as socialists. If that's Rush's and the Republican playbook, it's going to be a very long time before they're back in power. It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. Conservatives USED to be about doing the smart thing, even if it didn't always conform to an ideologic ideal.

21st century conservatism is the "word according to Rush" and I'm sorry if I think he's too deeply flawed, both intellectually and morally, to even understand conservatism, let alone define it for a new generation. He's using the language of conservatism to line his pockets, but he's engaging in every tactic of radicalism that true Conservativism detests and ultimately damaging the nation and conservatism as a whole.

Thank you Rush for playing right into liberal hands and all but assuring that Barry O has his way.

Rush's conservatism does no one any good if its adherents can't get elected and implement those policies. Rush speaks a good game about conservatism, but he's forgotten it's primary virtue, pragmatism. Your ideology is worthless if no one will elect you.

Lots of words without saying much of anything.

Give me one specific example of how Rush has damaged the conservative movement and moderates like yourself, McCain, etc, have brought us together.

I'm waiting...

scottryan

03-04-09, 09:52

REAL conservatives aren't so thin-skinned that they can't handle legitimate criticism.

Obviously you aren't one of them if you can't handle his comments at the CPAC.

scottryan

03-04-09, 09:54

but he's engaging in every tactic of radicalism that true Conservativism detests and ultimately damaging the nation and conservatism as a whole.

What is so radical that he does?

10MMGary

03-04-09, 09:59

So you haven't read a word I wrote eh? Thank you for proving my point. That makes any number of people who have done so. One more time...

Conservatism used to be about rationality and pragmatic solutions. No one person founded conservatism and no one person CAN serve as its spokesmen, its avatar or its sole determinant of who is, and who isn't a conservative. There is NO such thing as a "pure" conservative ideology. In fact conservatism has historically rejected any pure ideology, preferring instead to address problems as they are, rather than in how we think they should be.

Conservatism deliberately eschewed demagoguery, and cults of personality as simply a way of inspiring mob rule. That Rush's supporters have accused anyone who might disagree with as "socialists" or as you said a stooge for Carville/Begala, are acting precisely with a mob mentality, being whipped up to be used for a demogogue's interest. This is antithetical to true conservatism.

REAL conservatives aren't so thin-skinned that they can't handle legitimate criticism. Rush on the other hand, tacitly or otherwise, encourages his minions to flood phone banks from any republican who might criticize him. This is not LIBERTY, this is bullying people in a way that makes Carville/Begala proud.

Rush and his supporters would do much better if they realized he's simply edutainment. Conservatives should think for themselves, not let Rush tell them what to think...dittoheads. :rolleyes: I can't believe people think that's a compliment. Russel Kirk is doing half-gainers in his grave.

I also can't believe that all these so-called conservatives, who accuse those that might otherwise agree with them, as socialists. If that's Rush's and the Republican playbook, it's going to be a very long time before they're back in power. It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. Conservatives USED to be about doing the smart thing, even if it didn't always conform to an ideologic ideal.

21st century conservatism is the "word according to Rush" and I'm sorry if I think he's too deeply flawed, both intellectually and morally, to even understand conservatism, let alone define it for a new generation. He's using the language of conservatism to line his pockets, but he's engaging in every tactic of radicalism that true Conservativism detests and ultimately damaging the nation and conservatism as a whole.

Thank you Rush for playing right into liberal hands and all but assuring that Barry O has his way.

Rush's conservatism does no one any good if its adherents can't get elected and implement those policies. Rush speaks a good game about conservatism, but he's forgotten it's primary virtue, pragmatism. Your ideology is worthless if no one will elect you.

John,
You obviously do not listen to Rush, so where do you get you information in regards to him and his positions? You really should do a bit more research and stop listening to the drive by and MSM only.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 10:03

Lots of words without saying much of anything.

Give me one specific example of how Rush has damaged the conservative movement and moderates like yourself, McCain, etc, have brought us together.

I'm waiting...

As you say, lots of words without saying much of anything.

Any number of posts in this thread, including yours, more than prove the truth of my words, that this is no longer about conservatism, but about Rush. That his defenders can only make lame accusations about "socialism" or somehow not being a pure (read moderate) conservative demonstrates the poverty of his rhetoric and his brand of conservatism. It's thin-skinned and ultimately shallow.

Moreover if being pragmatic makes me a moderate, I can live with that.

scottryan

03-04-09, 10:05

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 10:08

John,
You obviously do not listen to Rush, so where do you get you information in regards to him and his positions? You really should do a bit more research and stop listening to the drive by and MSM only.

I don't listen to Rush regularly, but it's not like I've never heard him. I mean do you listen to Air America regularly? No then how do you know they're wrong?

I don't need to listen to his show to reject his brand of conservatism, which his adherents clearly believe as evidenced by their baseless accusations of socialism etc. When I do run across it on the dial, I'm often filled with a need to puke.

Lastly Rush IS the MSM. He's an entertainer for crying out loud, just like Air America, just like Al Franken, just like whomever it may be that you don't like.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 10:10

I'm still waiting.

You'll have a long wait. You're silly if you think I care what you think, let alone believe that you're prepared to give a fair hearing. You've yet to respond with anything other than to prove everything I've said about Limbaugh supporters. Any criticism is met with denials and counter-accusations.

You've already demonstrated that you're not capable of keeping an open mind. Another key trait of conservatives.

If Rush and his self-appointed spokesmen are the future of conservatism, it's not long for this world.

scottryan

03-04-09, 10:16

You'll have a long wait. You're silly if you think I care what you think, let alone believe that you're prepared to give a fair hearing. You've yet to respond to anything other than prove everything I've said about Limbaugh supporters.

You've already demonstrated that you're not capable of keeping an open mind. Another key trait of conservatives.

You have failed to respond about any economic policy in this thread and why Obama's should fail.

You have demonstrated a lack of economics understanding.

You are kidding yourself, trying to act conservative but at the same time trying to stay above it all. Just like John McCain. Trying to stay above it all will never win us an election. Your position of taking the high road is quite frankly arrogant.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 10:18

You have failed to respond about any economic policy in this thread and why Obama's should fail.

You have demonstrated a lack of economics understanding.

You are kidding yourself, trying to act conservative but at the same time trying to stay above it all. Just like John McCain. Trying to stay above it all will never win us an election. Your position of taking the high road is quite frankly arrogant.

Pure rubbish. Thank you again for proving my point.

variablebinary

03-04-09, 10:24

What is so radical that he does?

I'd like to know this as well...

thopkins22

03-04-09, 10:25

John I don't disagree with you on Rush. Where my problem lies(and we've argued this before,) how far left are we prepared to let this country go, simply arguing from a moderate position?

Conservatism as you define it, hasn't really achieved much. All it's done is slow the swing to the left down...almost to the point that we're electing republicans who would willingly continue down that same path, just at a slower pace.

Would you classify Barry Goldwater as a conservative? "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Doesn't sound like he's too interested in pussyfooting around to me.

BigDozer66

03-04-09, 10:49

John I don't disagree with you on Rush. Where my problem lies(and we've argued this before,) how far left are we prepared to let this country go, simply arguing from a moderate position?

Conservatism as you define it, hasn't really achieved much. All it's done is slow the swing to the left down...almost to the point that we're electing republicans who would willingly continue down that same path, just at a slower pace.

Would you classify Barry Goldwater as a conservative? "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Doesn't sound like he's too interested in pussyfooting around to me.

Well said.:)
The problem I see with the Repubs is that they aren't that much different than the Dems...as a whole.:mad:
There are a few Conservatives in the ranks but they get "ran out of town" most of the time.
I don't listen to Rush because he is to liberal for me.;)
BigDozer66

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 10:50

John I don't disagree with you on Rush. Where my problem lies(and we've argued this before,) how far left are we prepared to let this country go, simply arguing from a moderate position?

You're confusing moderation with pragmatism.

Conservatism as you define it, hasn't really achieved much. All it's done is slow the swing to the left down...almost to the point that we're electing republicans who would willingly continue down that same path, just at a slower pace.

The key conservative economic/political virtue is fiscal conservatism. More than any other, THIS is what we need to halt the progress of socialism. In that regard, McCain was among the most conservative on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Bush among the most liberal.

This however didn't stop Rush from bashing McCain as a moderate, and praising Bush as a conservative, helping him get re-elected even after he had demonstrated conservative incompetence. That people continue to label McCain as a moderate, in spite of decades long record of fiscal restraint is yet another example of Rush and his supporters trying to enforce a pure orthodoxy instead of a basic set of principles to adhere to.

Fiscal conservatism is what is needed, but Rush helped damn McCain's chances, already weakened by Republican incompetence.

I see your point, but that's addressed by pragmatism. Conservatism or any political ideology/creed is entirely worthless if it's not in political power. Where conservatism failed with Bush was supported/encouraged by Limbaugh. I find it funny that all these conservatives blame McCain, who was the only Republican that was going to get anywhere close to 50% of the vote.

Would you classify Barry Goldwater as a conservative? "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Doesn't sound like he's too interested in pussyfooting around to me.

Barry Goldwater was the last real conservative as far as I'm concerned, and was the mentor of John McCain who's the best living embodiment of that brand of conservatism. It's funny that you would mention that quote and Goldwater, he learned the pragmatic cost of being perceived as an extremist, rightly or wrongly.

Again, don't confuse moderation with pragmatism. Since people missed it at the beginning I said that I appreciate Rush being there to take it to liberals, but when you have to spend 20 minutes at a speech, defending your words, to an audience that listens to you everyday anyway. You've lost the debate, no matter how much he may have meant something different, the average American is only going to hear that Rush was willing to put partisan ideology over the interests of this country.

That may not be fair, it may not be accurate, but it's why you need to chose your words carefully, especially when you offer yourself as the avatar of conservatism. It makes it very easy for his enemies to discredit conservatism, by discrediting him personally.

If Rush supporters can't see the truth of that, than I weep for conservatism.

scottryan

03-04-09, 11:23

You're confusing moderation with pragmatism.

The key conservative economic/political virtue is fiscal conservatism. More than any other, THIS is what we need to halt the progress of socialism. In that regard, McCain was among the most conservative on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Bush among the most liberal.

Which is entirely what Obama is against yet you hope he succeeds.

This however didn't stop Rush from bashing McCain as a moderate, and praising Bush as a conservative, helping him get re-elected even after he had demonstrated conservative incompetence. That people continue to label McCain as a moderate, in spite of decades long record of fiscal restraint is yet another example of Rush and his supporters trying to enforce a pure orthodoxy instead of a basic set of principles to adhere to.

Rush did not praise Bush as a conservative during his second term after we saw the true face of Bush.

McCain is more liberal than a real conservative on just about everything except spending.

Palmguy

03-04-09, 11:27

As you say, lots of words without saying much of anything.

Any number of posts in this thread, including yours, more than prove the truth of my words, that this is no longer about conservatism, but about Rush. That his defenders can only make lame accusations about "socialism" or somehow not being a pure (read moderate) conservative demonstrates the poverty of his rhetoric and his brand of conservatism. It's thin-skinned and ultimately shallow.

Moreover if being pragmatic makes me a moderate, I can live with that.

What in the hell are you talking about? The very first post in this thread (yours, in case you forgot), is an attack on Rush Limbaugh. You received posts in response that agreed with what you said, and you received posts in response that disagreed with what you said. You made this about Rush.

Palmguy

03-04-09, 11:28

Which is entirely what Obama is against yet you hope he succeeds.

It makes no sense...he wants to play some silly shell game where he hopes that Obama succeeds but claims to disagree with everything he stands for. It is intellectually dishonest and makes no ****ing sense.

Obama success = American failure

thopkins22

03-04-09, 11:38

McCain is more liberal than a real conservative on just about everything except spending.

I agree that he's more fiscally conservative than Obama, but to imply that he's a fiscal conservative is a pretty bold(and wrong) statement.

We're talking about a guy who suspended his presidential campaign to push the most blatantly socialist bill in recent American history. Never mind the basic premise of bailing out failed companies, Mr. No Pork voted for more pork in that one single bill than he voted against in his entire career in the Senate.

scottryan

03-04-09, 12:10

I agree that he's more fiscally conservative than Obama, but to imply that he's a fiscal conservative is a pretty bold(and wrong) statement.

We're talking about a guy who suspended his presidential campaign to push the most blatantly socialist bill in recent American history. Never mind the basic premise of bailing out failed companies, Mr. No Pork voted for more pork in that one single bill than he voted against in his entire career in the Senate.

My point was McCain is more fiscally conservative than Bush.

thopkins22

03-04-09, 12:29

My point was McCain is more fiscally conservative than Bush.

Agreed. Democrats look at me like I'm crazy when I try and explain that Bush was a flaming liberal. Hubris is a funny thing.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 12:40

Which is entirely what Obama is against yet you hope he succeeds.

Seriously, not only is the above statement profoundly stupid, and plainly in defiance of everything I've said, but also proves my point, far more profoundly than I could make myself. Your willingness to cast aspersions on anyone who might criticize your beloved Rush speaks volumes about the truth of my words.

Thank you again.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 12:43

It makes no sense...he wants to play some silly shell game where he hopes that Obama succeeds but claims to disagree with everything he stands for. It is intellectually dishonest and makes no ****ing sense.

Obama success = American failure

I'm afraid that the only intellectually dishonest people here are those that keep accusing those that might criticize Rush somehow equates to hoping Obama succeeds?

It is intellectually dishonest, and makes no ****ing sense, but that doesn't seem to be stopping you.

scottryan

03-04-09, 12:44

Seriously, not only is the above statement profoundly stupid, and plainly in defiance of everything I've said, but also proves my point, far more profoundly than I could make myself. Your willingness to cast aspersions on anyone who might criticize your beloved Rush speaks volumes about the truth of my words.

Thank you again.

You are hoping Obama succeeds with a plan you admit wont work. How stupid is that?

There have been five people in this thread that have said this to you. You won't answer this point.

scottryan

03-04-09, 12:46

I'm afraid that the only intellectually dishonest people here are those that keep accusing those that might criticize Rush somehow equates to hoping Obama succeeds?

We are not sticking up for Rush specifically. We are sticking up for conservatives that have the balls to confront the left. In this thread, it just so happens it be Rush.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 12:49

You are hoping Obama succeeds with a plan you admit wont work. How stupid is that?

I see the problem here, you can't read and understand basic English. The only way you could get that is by deliberately or accidentally twisting my words.

There have been five people in this thread that have said this to you. You won't answer this point.

Because the point is goofball and is a pathetic attempt to deflect criticism from Rush. Why would I even begin to argue such an idiotic point?

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 12:50

We are not sticking up for Rush specifically. We are sticking up for conservatives that have the balls to confront the left. In this thread, it just so happens it be Rush.

I see, yet another self-appointed champion of conservatism. :rolleyes:

I weep for what conservatism USED to be.

10MMGary

03-04-09, 12:50

I don't listen to Rush regularly, but it's not like I've never heard him. I mean do you listen to Air America regularly? No then how do you know they're wrong?

I don't need to listen to his show to reject his brand of conservatism, which his adherents clearly believe as evidenced by their baseless accusations of socialism etc. When I do run across it on the dial, I'm often filled with a need to puke.

Lastly Rush IS the MSM. He's an entertainer for crying out loud, just like Air America, just like Al Franken, just like whomever it may be that you don't like.

I don't even think Air America is still broadcasting and I never did listen to one single broadcast when they were broadcasting. All I needed to know about Air America is they were owned part and parcel by George Soros and that is all I needed to know.

Additionally Rush is nothing like Al Franken, Al Franken is a known liar and insurance cheat a poor boss to those who have worked for him. I never implied Rush was anything but an entertainer and with 22,000,000 listeners and growing every year obviously a very good one. However the biggest distinction with Rush is i he is correct in his observation and explanation 99% of the time. Also John, I don't know you and would never assume to classify you one way or another, I do however simply disagree with you and feel you are wrong about Rush.

scottryan

03-04-09, 12:51

I see the problem here, you can't read and understand basic English. The only way you could get that is by deliberately or accidentally twisting my words.

Because the point is goofball and is a pathetic attempt to deflect criticism from Rush.

Can't answer specific points and borderline personal attacks prove you can't handle the discussion.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 12:54

Can't answer specific points and borderline personal attacks prove you can't handle the discussion.

Tell yourself whatever you have to.

I love how you accuse others of being socialists or Obama supporters, then lamely whine about non-existant "borderline personal attacks". People in glass houses and all that...

You chose to deliberately twist my words, or lack the ability to understand them. Either way, you do more to discredit yourself than I could hope for.

If yours/Rush's brand of conservative means to attack anyone who doesn't lock step with their rigid ideology, is a sure-fire way to alienate most of the right-wing and assure liberal/Obama dominance.

If you'd rather be ideologically pure, than win an actual election to implement your policies, than your conservatism becomes irrelevant.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 13:01

What in the hell are you talking about? The very first post in this thread (yours, in case you forgot), is an attack on Rush Limbaugh.

You received posts in response that agreed with what you said, and you received posts in response that disagreed with what you said. You made this about Rush.

Sigh, I presumed you understood that I was talking about Rush making conservatism about himself. That he continues to do so, weakens the foundations on what conservatism stands for as liberals can attack conservatism through ad hominem.

OF COURSE I brought Rush into it. That's kind of the point.

Moreover that you mistake criticism for an "attack" means you didn't read my first post and have subsequently missed the point of every subsequent one. It also proves my point about how thin-skinned and shallow Rush's conservatism is. That people have gone so over-the-top in their defense of Rush, accusing other conservatives of being socialists etc, only makes my words that much more prophetic, and sad.

When we really need conservatism to be strong, Rush and his followers are intent on "purging" the Republican party of its moderate wing. That they fail to see the electoral, economic and political disaster that this would entail is deeply disturbing.

scottryan

03-04-09, 13:03

I love how you accuse others of being socialists or Obama supporters, then lamely whine about non-existant "borderline personal attacks". People in glass houses and all that...

Calling someone a socialist is not a personal attack.

You chose to deliberately twist my words, or lack the ability to understand them. Either way, you do more to discredit yourself than I could hope for.

You've had 11 pages to explain them more clearly, but haven't.

If yours/Rush's brand of conservative means to attack anyone who doesn't lock step with their rigid ideology, is a sure-fire way to alienate most of the right-wing and assure liberal/Obama dominance.

All this does is make me further believe you are a moderate.

If you'd rather be ideologically pure, than win an actual election to implement your policies, than your conservatism becomes irrelevant.

We tried "your way" last election and it didn't work. It also didn't work for the 8 years the republicans had full control of both the executive and legislature and we failed to get anything accomplished. We squandered the opportunity to stick it to the left on all their social programs and failed because we took the "high road."

scottryan

03-04-09, 13:07

Sigh, I presumed you understood that I was talking about Rush making conservatism about himself. That he continues to do so, weakens the foundations on what conservatism stands for as liberals can attack conservatism through ad hominem.

You have this twisted in your mind that conservatism is only about Rush because he is one of the few people that is leading the conservative movement.

Unlike present day, back in the 1980s Reagan was the leader of the conservative movement and was also the president.

Who is the leader of the conservative movement now? Its not Bush, McCain, or Steele.

Back in the 1980s, the leaders of the party were also the leaders of the conservative movement.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 13:08

I don't even think Air America is still broadcasting and I never did listen to one single broadcast when they were broadcasting. All I needed to know about Air America is they were owned part and parcel by George Soros and that is all I needed to know.

Additionally Rush is nothing like Al Franken, Al Franken is a known liar and insurance cheat a poor boss to those who have worked for him. I never implied Rush was anything but an entertainer and with 22,000,000 listeners and growing every year obviously a very good one. However the biggest distinction with Rush is i he is correct in his observation and explanation 99% of the time. Also John, I don't know you and would never assume to classify you one way or another, I do however simply disagree with you and feel you are wrong about Rush.

My point is that you don't have to listen to it in order to know you disagree.

I don't need to listen to Rush everyday, or even more than once, in order to know where I agree or disagree. He's not that hard to understand.

Moreover I'd rather endure a root canal by a rabid wolverine than listen to any form of talk radio, especially given the idiocy of some of the callers.

scottryan

03-04-09, 13:14

Moreover I'd rather endure a root canal by a rabid wolverine than listen to any form of talk radio, especially given the idiocy of some of the callers.

Like I said, elitist and arrogant.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 13:21

You have this twisted in your mind that conservatism is only about Rush because he is one of the few people that is leading the conservative movement.

Unlike present day, back in the 1980s Reagan was the leader of the conservative movement and was also the president.

Who is the leader of the conservative movement now? Its not Bush, McCain, or Steele.

Back in the 1980s, the leaders of the party were also the leaders of the conservative movement.

I've been studying conservatism since my father handed me Russell Kirk at a tender age. I've not twisted conservatism, it's Rush that's twisted conservatism so that now in your mind it's unrecognizable to its intellectual foundations. So when people accuse me of being a socialist or Obama supporter, I have to laugh because not only do they not know what they're talking about, but they're demonstrating an inability to respond with anything rational.

Who leads the Republican party now? I don't know, but since Rush isn't in the leadership, let alone holds political office and so its awfully easy to throw bricks from the sidelines when you don't have to make hard choices. However when Obama can throw bricks at Rush, while getting the credit for being bipartisan in his leadership style, than maybe someone needs to tell Rush to quit painting a bull's eye on his ass.

Reagan was hardly a "pure" conservative, but he was also lightning in a jar. This is why it's dangerous to make conservatism about a person, rather than a set of principles that recognize how the world ACTUALLY works. For all intents and purposes conservatism died with Reagan, to be reborn in Rush Limbaugh's image? Are you kidding me?

The reason there are no conservative "leaders" is that conservatism by its nature distrusts leadership. Conservatism fears demagogues and those that represent any form of ideologic purity.

If however you put a gun to my head and had me pick just one conservative voice, I'd pick Newt Gingrich but that's not a sure-bet and not without problems and we'd be making the same mistake if we create a cult of Newt.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 13:23

Like I said, elitist and arrogant.

Like I said, when you can't offer a reasonable defense of criticisms of Rush you respond with the very same invective you accused me of earlier. Words like "elitist" and "arrogant" are worthless as they are entirely subjective descriptors that are used as rhetorical bombs. In general they reveal a lack of sophistication and are simply defending ignorance by saying the other guy is too smart.

Few people are as elitist and arrogant as Rush Limbaugh, yet it doesn't seem to bother you then? Seems a bit inconsistent, but then you're not capable of seeing any of his flaws or tolerating any criticism. Arrogant and elitist? Have you looked in the mirror?

Thank you once again, for proving my point.

PS. Conservatism by definition is elitism. It distrusts the mob, but I guess you missed that part.

scottryan

03-04-09, 13:29

Who leads the Republican party now? I don't know, but since Rush isn't in the leadership, let alone holds political office and so its awfully easy to throw bricks from the sidelines when you don't have to make hard choices.

There are plenty of politicians on the left that attack the right and these people "have to make hard choices"

However when Obama can throw bricks at Rush, while getting the credit for being bipartisan in his leadership style, than maybe someone needs to tell Rush to quit painting a bull's eye on his ass.

Who says Obama has such great bipartisan leadership? The MSN?

Obama is on record saying that he won the election and things will go "his way." How is that bipartisan?

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 13:35

Who says Obama has such great bipartisan leadership? The MSN?

I think you can look at any number of polls and see that Obama is getting high marks all the way around, and especially for bipartisanship.

Obama is on record saying that he won the election and things will go "his way." How is that bipartisan?

You're confusing with what is said, with what is perceived.

Once again this was my original point about what Rush said.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 13:47

We tried "your way" last election and it didn't work. It also didn't work for the 8 years the republicans had full control of both the executive and legislature and we failed to get anything accomplished. We squandered the opportunity to stick it to the left on all their social programs and failed because we took the "high road."

I missed this point, but talk about learning the exact WRONG lesson.

You tried it in the last election and it didn't work, because for the previous 10 you elected so-called "pure" conservatives (that Rush heartily agreed with/approved of) who not only participated in the largest increase in government history, but also arguably the largest social experiment since FDR. These weren't "moderates" who did this. These were "staunch" conservatives. I know because I saw it first hand. They weren't trying to take the "high" road, they were trying to line their pockets. In doing so, they discredited themselves and ultimately discredited conservatism in the public imagination.

Choosing a moderate (if that was indeed the calculus) at that point was like closing the barn door after the horse escape. Moreover it's also false that McCain was a moderate: He believed in fiscal restraint, individual liberty, a strong national defense and low taxes. No conservative is perfect, but the choice was between a desperate and divided Republican party and a united Democratic party...guess who won? Shocking right? Blaming McCain for the loss is a distinct failure of conservatives to look inward and honestly acknowledge their failures.

Calling someone a "socialist" who actually espouses socialist principles is not a personal attack. Calling someone a "socialist" who not only HASN'T argued for socialist principles, but also do so with the intent of using it as an ad hominem when you can't respond intelligently is not only an attack, but a pathetically obvious one as well.

Palmguy

03-04-09, 13:56

Sigh, I presumed you understood that I was talking about Rush making conservatism about himself. That he continues to do so, weakens the foundations on what conservatism stands for as liberals can attack conservatism through ad hominem.

OF COURSE I brought Rush into it. That's kind of the point.

Moreover that you mistake criticism for an "attack" means you didn't read my first post and have subsequently missed the point of every subsequent one. It also proves my point about how thin-skinned and shallow Rush's conservatism is. That people have gone so over-the-top in their defense of Rush, accusing other conservatives of being socialists etc, only makes my words that much more prophetic, and sad.

I didn't mistake anything. I read your post. Replace the word "attack" with "criticism" in my post; my meaning doesn't change. Thin-skinned doesn't really have anything to do with it; my whole point from the beginning in this thread is that you and Rush were not talking about the same thing when it comes to success and/or failure. You refuse to acknowledge this point, instead calling it a game in semantics.

Palmguy

03-04-09, 14:01

I'm afraid that the only intellectually dishonest people here are those that keep accusing those that might criticize Rush somehow equates to hoping Obama succeeds?

It is intellectually dishonest, and makes no ****ing sense, but that doesn't seem to be stopping you.

I'm making the argument that if you criticize Rush, you want Obama to succeed? Not really. I'm making the argument that if you criticize Rush in the manner that you have in this thread, you don't understand what he was saying. If you are unable to wrap your brain around the fact that the entirety of what he said was centered on 'I hope that he fails to enact his agenda', and not 'I hope the country goes down the crapper with Obama at the wheel so that the Republicans can retake power in 2010/2012', I really don't know what to tell you.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 14:03

I didn't mistake anything. I read your post. Replace the word "attack" with "criticism" in my post; my meaning doesn't change. Thin-skinned doesn't really have anything to do with it; my whole point from the beginning in this thread is that you and Rush were not talking about the same thing when it comes to success and/or failure. You refuse to acknowledge this point, instead calling it a game in semantics.

Ok...one last time. Disregard everything else...what I may or may not believe, what Rush may or may not have intended, it doesn't really matter. It's exactly about semantics. What most Americans heard was "I prefer partisan victory over the good of the country."

What matters is the perception. If Rush feels he has to offer up a twenty minute explanation of what he meant, than he obviously didn't state it well to begin with.

If the only group that hears the twenty minute explanation is a CPAC conference, of people deeply friendly to Rush, he's already lost the political argument.

Is it fair? Is it accurate? No, but it's the PRAGMATIC reality. Someone who makes his living on the radio and appoints himself as the spokesman for conservatism should be aware of that little reality. Rush made the issue about himself rather than Obama's flawed policies.

It's not only beyond dumb, but it's narcissistic as well.

Neither are qualities I want in a conservative "leader".

Palmguy

03-04-09, 14:36

Ok...one last time. Disregard everything else...what I may or may not believe, what Rush may or may not have intended, it doesn't really matter. It's exactly about semantics.

I started out posting in this thread because of what you wrote. In other words, what you believe.

What most Americans heard was "I prefer partisan victory over the good of the country." What matters is the perception. If Rush feels he has to offer up a twenty minute explanation of what he meant, than he obviously didn't state it well to begin with.

And you were apparently in the group of "most Americans". Let's talk about context for a moment. The original "format" of this quote was Rush Limbaugh's radio show, a 3 hour show. The entire context of this "I hope he fails" business is contained within 3 paragraphs of transcripted text, from which only the willfully ignorant choose to gloss over what he meant and what he said crystal clear. Anyone can grab four words that one person says and make them out to be anything, really. It's not unreasonable to me to look a paragraph on either side of that sentence, probably less than 20 or 30 seconds on either side of it when read, for what he is saying. We aren't talking about 20 minutes at CPAC, we are talking about maybe a minute or two of speaking, in the middle of which is the line "I hope he fails".

Why do you think this incorrect perception exists? To me, a big part of why is the headline "I hope he fails" - Limbaugh on Obama. The media and the left side of the aisle, and obviously some on the right took off with those four words. If you can't find the few sentences on either side of that and then make up your mind, then you really don't care about the truth.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 14:56

I started out posting in this thread because of what you wrote. In other words, what you believe.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. I do believe that's what he meant, maybe without realizing how it sounded. Hence my use of the adjective "red-meat" delivery. I was trying to get rid of some of the extraneous noise of the argument to reduce it to the essential political reality that my belief is irrelevant to the public view, but that doesn't mean I don't believe it.

Similarly I don't believe for one second that Rush wishes Obama success in any way shape or form, even if he was to become a born-again conservative, and so for him to say that he just hopes Obama's policies fail strikes me as a bit disingenuous. You may disagree, but that is irrelevant to the public perception. I voted for John McCain, but that belief was likewise irrelevant. That said, I doubt many believe that if Rush himself had run that he would have won?

Like I said from the first, I appreciate Rush's voice taking it to liberals, but he shouldn't mistake his edutainer status for being the voice of conservatism. And when he says something stupid, acknowledge it as stupid, rather than trying to justify it to a conservative audience. A little Burkean modesty would go a long way for Rush if he wants to play a role in the future.

In the meantime he continues to play into Democratic hands.

chadbag

03-04-09, 15:09

I don't listen to Rush very often. He is on in the AM and I only listen while driving and I don't often drive in the morning. I was driving out to function test some ammo and some guns and heard about 45 min today.

Once you get through the pompousness and showmanship and self adulation, he is a really smart guy. He understands the root causes and effects and how life really works.

scottryan

03-04-09, 15:34

I think you can look at any number of polls and see that Obama is getting high marks all the way around, and especially for bipartisanship.

By all the same stupid people that elected him.

Where is proof of him being bipartisan other than a poll.

You're confusing with what is said, with what is perceived.

No, Obama said during a meeting that "he won and things will go his way."

This was on TV.

scottryan

03-04-09, 15:36

I missed this point, but talk about learning the exact WRONG lesson.

You tried it in the last election and it didn't work, because for the previous 10 you elected so-called "pure" conservatives (that Rush heartily agreed with/approved of) who not only participated in the largest increase in government history, but also arguably the largest social experiment since FDR. These weren't "moderates" who did this. These were "staunch" conservatives. I know because I saw it first hand. They weren't trying to take the "high" road, they were trying to line their pockets. In doing so, they discredited themselves and ultimately discredited conservatism in the public imagination.

Please show me were I called Bush and the Republican's that held power pure conservatives.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 15:56

Please show me were I called Bush and the Republican's that held power pure conservatives.

I'm afraid that's a bit of a straw-man. Show me where that's important to any point I've made.

The "you" in the above statement was the royal "you". Meaning not you as an individual but Rush supporters as a whole.

You're devolving into sophmoric arguments. Proof of bipartisanship outside of a poll? Since bipartisanship isn't something you subjectively do, but rather a public perception, please tell me what proof you would accept if you won't accept that?

chadbag

03-04-09, 15:57

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 15:59

Obama and bi-partisanship?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

He politely listens to the other side for about 5 minutes and then tells them to piss off, he is going to do it his way and makes no effort to accommodate other ideas.

That's exactly my point. Saying that one is bipartisan and actually being bipartisan has NOTHING to do with being PERCEIVED as bipartisan. So far he's getting away with it so far as he is able to take advantage of meaningless distractions like Limbaugh and so attacking conservativism by proxy, rather than the republicans in congress directly.

It's freaking scary brilliant.

mtk

03-04-09, 16:04

That's exactly my point. Saying that one is bipartisan and actually being bipartisan has NOTHING to do with being PERCEIVED as bipartisan. So far he's getting away with it so far as he is able to take advantage of meaningless distractions like Limbaugh and so attacking conservativism by proxy, rather than the republicans in congress directly.

It's freaking scary brilliant.

Sorry, but just because Nancy Pelosi considers The Kenyan's plans bipartisan doesn't make it so.

Nor does Specter's traiterous support of his bailout make it bipartisan either.

Count me among the many who want that shithead to fail.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 16:06

Sorry, but just because Nancy Pelosi considers The Kenyan's plans bipartisan doesn't make it so.

Nor does Specter's traiterous support of his bailout make it bipartisan either.

Count me among the many who want that shithead to fail.

Seriously you need to go back and re-read what I wrote because you obviously didn't understand it.

The above statement is not the least bit germane to any of my comments.

Palmguy

03-04-09, 16:48

Saying that one is bipartisan and actually being bipartisan has NOTHING to do with being PERCEIVED as bipartisan.

I understand and agree with this.

At the same time, being PERCEIVED as bipartisan has nothing to do with actually being bipartisan.

Yeah, perception is what matters come election time. I get it.

Do you think Obama has been bipartisan? Yes I know in the grand scheme of things that question doesn't matter. I'm just curious.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 16:52

Do you think Obama has been bipartisan? Yes I know in the grand scheme of things that question doesn't matter. I'm just curious.

I think he has mastered the rhetoric of bipartisanship, rendering the actuality of bipartisanship completely irrelevant.

Do I think he walks the walk? No.

scottryan

03-04-09, 16:58

I'm afraid that's a bit of a straw-man. Show me where that's important to any point I've made.

The "you" in the above statement was the royal "you". Meaning not you as an individual but Rush supporters as a whole.

You're devolving into sophmoric arguments. Proof of bipartisanship outside of a poll? Since bipartisanship isn't something you subjectively do, but rather a public perception, please tell me what proof you would accept if you won't accept that?

If you don't listen to him, how can you say he supports the Republicans that have been in power the last 8 year.

He doesn't defend them when they get out of line with conservative views.

Gutshot John

03-04-09, 17:03

If you don't listen to him, how can you say he supports the Republicans that have been in power the last 8 year.

He doesn't defend them when they get out of line with conservative views.

No I've never heard Rush Limbaugh speak ever. Come on I don't live under a rock.

Choosing to listen to someone doesn't mean you're not occasionally forced to listen to it.

He attacks them when they get out of line with HIS conservative views which gets back to my point. He should be attacking democrats rather than trying to bully conservatives into doing his bidding.

A conservative majority can only be obtained by having moderate/center-right conservatives as well as hard-right conservatives. By attacking the moderate wing of the party, he drives them into the arms of the democrats. This weakens conservatism because in the end only the hard-right will remain in the party and be forever relegated to minority status in a republic.

The first rule of pragmatism is that your ideals are irrelevant if you're not in power to implement them.

Safetyhit

03-04-09, 17:04

SpartanArms

03-04-09, 18:01

Gutshot John,

As someone who listens to Rush on a daily basis and is not afraid to admit it, I totally disagree with what you are saying. Rush has stated over and over again that he hopes and knows Obama will fail. If you insist on believing that he means he wants America to fail then you have missed the point. America can and will succeed without Obama's socialist policies and programs. And the only way that will happen is if we continue to stand against what he is doing. I for one am not about to give up any of my rights or freedoms or our current economic system just so that Obama can succeed. The problem is that everyone in the media is confusing the words "Obama" and "America." They are not one in the same. America can and has succeeded without Obama, and Obama succeeding with his plans does not mean that America will get better. It means exactly the opposite. I think we both can agree that socialism is not the "fix" that this country needs now or anytime in the future...yet that is what Obama is wanting to implement. The media know this and they want it too, that is exactly why they get so butt-hurt and start raining hate at Limbaugh or anyone else who would stand in the way of socialism/socialist policies. I understand if you don't agree with what Rush says, that's what's great about America as it stands now; we have the freedom to disagree. But in the America Obama wants, we certainly won't have that freedom; and that is the beauty of Rush. Even if you don't agree with what he says or all of his politics he is still standing up for all of our 1st Amendment rights to voice our own views. Yes I will agree with you that Rush deals quite a bit in "red-meat" and he is over-the-top quite a bit, but that is one of the reasons I love to listen to him. He doesn't get cowed by what others think of him and he freely expresses his own opinions. In the same vein, news outlets like ABC and CNN have a daily conference call with Rahm Emanuel to get their "talking points" to push Obama's "red-meat" to everyone who watches the evening news, so what is the real difference. The anchors at ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and even some at FOX News don't hide their liberal bias; why should Rush be apologetic about his admittedly conservative bias? Lets not tear down fellow firearms/gun enthusiasts here in this forum over a simple difference in opinion, that just plays right into the hands of socialist liberals like Obama who would like nothing more than for their opposition to be fractured and ineffective.

"If we don't all hang together, we shall surely hang separately." Ben Franklin