Jump to content

Obama Vs. Limbaugh Vs. GOP


ricco67

Recommended Posts

For the record, I have lots and lots of disagreements with Mark's logic. I could go on for pages. But I do appreciate his attempt. By taking up an undefended position of moral absolutism, Kinkaid is just being philosophically lazy.

I have no problems admitting I have been lazy with regards to this thread. One has to pick his or her battles and this one isn't really worth it. I just wanted to pipe in and state that I thought quite a few statements on here about the poor were misinformed.

Plus, apparently, I don't have as much time to post as all of you "I am so busy and I work so hard and I deserve everything because of it" types. Must be nice to juggle such hard work with posting 40 times a day on a website. I bet you might even do it all while chewing gum and pattin' your tummy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, apparently, I don't have as much time to post as all of you "I am so busy and I work so hard and I deserve everything because of it" types. Must be nice to juggle such hard work with posting 40 times a day on a website. I bet you might even do it all while chewing gum and pattin' your tummy!

You forgot ".. while whipping minorities, killing trees, and stomping on puppies"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find Rush a little hard to take and i dont really care about his current war of words with Obama or GOP powers.

However, I find it laughable that all the democratic talking heads and some in the mainstream media are raising this much ado about Rush's "I want Obama to fail" comment.

So now that the Left is in charge, Now it's Un-American to not get in line behind the president, huh?

Maybe they didnt flat out say it in such an obvious way, but the Left wanted Bush's Iraq strategy to fail. Then it was American to not agree with the President, because dissent is the ultimate patriotic act and all that. They didnt want Bush to fail because they don't love the country, but they did want him to fail because they thought Bush's path to fix things was the wrong path and because they resented the situation Bush got us into ( as if that mattered at that point anymore )

It's the same now now with Rush's comments. He doesnt want the country to fail, He wants Obama's initatives to fail becasue he doesnt believe they will save us. HE believe they will do more to hurt then help.. Seems to me his dissent is equally patriotic, even if he is over dramatic and pompous in his delivery.

Ahh.. but now that the Left is in charge.. now dissent is unpatriotic. Bring out the rhetoric and the hypocrisy.

Ding! The Left always wanted Bush to fail (and still hate him) yet no one raised a hullaballoo over them.

I do like Limbaugh's programming, but I do listen to NPR (and other liberal-leaning media outlets). I don't agree with 100% Limbaugh says, but he makes good points, and so on.

I also agree with the logic that if you don't vote (but could), you shouldn't complain. How many Bush-haters actually voted for Gore (or Kerry?).

I don't mind Democrats and Republicans...it's what make this country unique.

Bush haters suck. I mean, I don't like Obama...I hope he's not praised as much as he is/going to be...but I don't HATE Obama, like those low-lifes hated Bush.

Calling Limbaugh an "extreme right" would be like calling whole milk "whipping cream". Yes, it is in that general direction, but there is a pretty big difference.

And TexasVines left? When was this?

Edited by IronTiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ding! The Left always wanted Bush to fail (and still hate him) yet no one raised a hullaballoo over them.

I do like Limbaugh's programming, but I do listen to NPR (and other liberal-leaning media outlets). I don't agree with 100% Limbaugh says, but he makes good points, and so on.

I also agree with the logic that if you don't vote (but could), you shouldn't complain. How many Bush-haters actually voted for Gore (or Kerry?).

I don't mind Democrats and Republicans...it's what make this country unique.

Bush haters suck. I mean, I don't like Obama...I hope he's not praised as much as he is/going to be...but I don't HATE Obama, like those low-lifes hated Bush.

Calling Limbaugh an "extreme right" would be like calling whole milk "whipping cream". Yes, it is in that general direction, but there is a pretty big difference.

And TexasVines left? When was this?

I don't know. I think it's fair to hate someone who's responsible for the number of deaths that Bush is responsible for, in Iraq. He has a lot of blood on his hands. Anyway, that's why I dislike him so much (we don't really use the word "hate", as I tell my kids).

Okay folks, have at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ding! The Left always wanted Bush to fail (and still hate him) yet no one raised a hullaballoo over them.

The Left wanted Bush to fail? Then they're as dumb as Rush.

I think Bush was a terrible president and an annoying person. I would have been thrilled if somehow his plans had succeeded because I'm a pragmatist. If lying about the reasons for going to war, pissing off our allies and sweetheart deals for business buddies would have made the world a better place, I'd be a big champion for those actions. I just can't find any evidence that those things ever really work out in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if sweetheart deals for business buddies would have made the world a better place, I'd be a big champion for those actions. I just can't find any evidence that those things ever really work out in the end.

If it makes you feel any better, Goldman Sachs is still profiting off of the detritus of the financial system!

My Republican friends used to call that a win. Now they are strangely quiet on the matter. Sort of like the Federal Reserve.

Hmmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bush was a terrible president and an annoying person.

Bush was the right's Jimmy Carter. Like Carter, his heart and convictions were in the right place. But, the execution was misled and poor overall. A bad place to be when in the executive branch. That's the unfortunate part of any presidency. You become more responsible for things, yet you cede much control to the people that work for you. It's a cruel irony that Obama has yet to face. All presidents do eventually. Clinton handled that dichotomoy very, very well and with much grace. As did Reagan.

Edited by Gooch
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ding! The Left always wanted Bush to fail (and still hate him) yet no one raised a hullaballoo over them.

Yea but they were then called unpatriotic ... I guess Rush and Hannity and them now hate America and our brave troops who are fighting to keep this great Nation safe. -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes!

First of all, most of everyone has gone off the deep end.

@ Sarahiki: Saying Bush "had a lot of blood on his hands" is a great misunderstanding. If you think the soldiers died in the Middle East because of Bush........then I feel really bad for you, because you misdirect blame and have misdirected blame to others in the past. Nothing I say will change that.

@ Memebag: It's okay if you don't like Bush's presidency...that's your opinion and I'm fine with that. It's just the extremists...the ones that blamed Bush on 9/11, made him out to be a monster...or a dunce.

@ Gooch: Good point. Well said without getting overly angry or upset. But I don't think Carter got the "bad president crap" that Bush did.

@ Crunchtastic: I think that "old school Texas democrat" has really changed...the whole "true" Democrat and Republican thing kind of got messed up in the 1970s. I'm pretty sure that there are some disgruntled ones on both sides angry at the changes.

@HtownWxBoy: I don't remember the left being called "unpatriotic"....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@HtownWxBoy: I don't remember the left being called "unpatriotic"....

Tiger take a moment to research the issue for yourself. A quick search on google for the phrases "called unpatriotic" and "tired of being called unpatriotic" results in a tsunami of results, almost all from journalists, bloggers, and the occasional politician, bemoaning an apparent wave of aggression towards their anti-Bush or anti-war positions. Unsurprisingly, most of these claims are heavy on self-righteous martyrdom and light on evidence. For every exasperated defense of liberal patriotism, one has to search ten times harder to find an actual example of an attack on it. Most of those crying out for an end to such character attacks never bother to actually identify an incident in which such an attack took place. Those very few that do are usually vague and generalized, relying on the accounts of various unnamed friends who have been confronted by rabid right-wingers in an unnamed town for some unnamed reason. A precious handful of such protests refer to one or two select politicians making statements about other specific politicians, and these examples tend to similarly lack any sourcing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Sarahiki: Saying Bush "had a lot of blood on his hands" is a great misunderstanding. If you think the soldiers died in the Middle East because of Bush........then I feel really bad for you, because you misdirect blame and have misdirected blame to others in the past. Nothing I say will change that.

Bush started the Iraq war. He said it was because they had or were close to having weapons of mass destruction and were supporting terrorists. It turns out his administration knew that wasn't true. We don't know his real reasons for starting that war, but blaming Bush for civilian and military deaths seems entirely reasonable to me.

@ Memebag: It's okay if you don't like Bush's presidency...that's your opinion and I'm fine with that. It's just the extremists...the ones that blamed Bush on 9/11, made him out to be a monster...or a dunce.

I don't blame Bush for 9/11, and he isn't a "monster" or a "dunce", but he's among the least intelligent presidents we've ever had.

@ Gooch: Good point. Well said without getting overly angry or upset. But I don't think Carter got the "bad president crap" that Bush did.

Search google. Carter was ranked near the bottom is several polls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember the left being called "unpatriotic"
Remember it vividly. Somewhat deserved, too. The cry from the left was "I support the troops, but not the war." Which is akin to saying "I hope we lose the battle but no one gets killed." Of course in war, loss = death. That's not supportive of the troops, that was a cop-out. That's what made their stance un-american. Political opposition is perfectly American, and patriotic. We don't have to all agree- it's better if we don't. But stand up, say it directly, don't hide behind bromides.

To bring the thread full circle... not that different than what Rush said. He's said many times "I support the President, but not his policies." mocking the liberal troop-support mantra!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush started the Iraq war. He said it was because they had or were close to having weapons of mass destruction and were supporting terrorists. It turns out his administration knew that wasn't true. We don't know his real reasons for starting that war, but blaming Bush for civilian and military deaths seems entirely reasonable to me.

Actually, that's not entirely accurate. Saddam Hussein at one point was offering a $10,000 reward to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. That may be different from the claim that Hussein was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, but it is the promotion of terrorism against an ally of the United States. Hussein's history of using chemical weapons on his own subjects, of randomly kicking out UN inspectors at various intervals, of systematically testing the backbone each new American President by rattling sabers, and of being a general pain in the ass to the diplomatic community didn't help. It indicated that he was continuing to be aggressive and that given the opportunity to use weapons of mass destruction, he probably would, possibly without provocation.

Is that justification for going to war? I honestly don't know. None of the stated reasons made sense, and neither did any of the suggested reasons stated by opposition to the war. I think that there was a behind-the-scenes rationale, I just don't know what it was; it is entirely possible that the war was justified by some circumstance or another, and if it wasn't justified then, well if Iraq continues improving like it has, then it'll probably be viewed as justified in another decade or so just from having created a stable, growing democracy in the Middle East. My beef with Bush is just that the war wasn't executed more decisively, especially in the first several years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember it vividly. Somewhat deserved, too. The cry from the left was "I support the troops, but not the war." Which is akin to saying "I hope we lose the battle but no one gets killed." Of course in war, loss = death. That's not supportive of the troops, that was a cop-out. That's what made their stance un-american. Political opposition is perfectly American, and patriotic. We don't have to all agree- it's better if we don't. But stand up, say it directly, don't hide behind bromides.

To bring the thread full circle... not that different than what Rush said. He's said many times "I support the President, but not his policies." mocking the liberal troop-support mantra!

I find the use of terms such as "unpatriotic" and "un-American" to be completely devoid of substance, only to be used by those without a defensible argument. And those who are offended by the term being used against them are lacking huevos as well. If you care enough about your position to utter an opinion, feckless phrases like "unpatriotic" and "un-American" should not dissuade one from standing up for what one believes in, just as teenage posters...who couldn't have been more than 10 years old when Bush took office...do not offend me when they say I suck for hating the man who needlessly caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

As for who supported the troops, I do not find putting bumper stickers on one's SUV while enjoying using the enemy's oil and voting myself tax cuts, so that I don't have to pay for it, "supporting the troops". I do not claim to have "supported the troops" by having opposed the war, but neither will I let such hypocritical claims go unanswered. Supporting the troops is joining up. Supporting the troops is raising your tax burden to pay for the salaries and materiel to fight the war. Americans did none of that. To claim sacrifice in support of the troops is a fraud.

BTW, Rush Limbaugh has never claimed to support the president...nor should he, because he does not. I respect his right to say what he says. I respect my right to say that he is a fat, drug addicted hypocrite.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the use of terms such as "unpatriotic" and "un-American" to be completely devoid of substance, only to be used by those without a defensible argument. And those who are offended by the term being used against them are lacking huevos as well. If you care enough about your position to utter an opinion, feckless phrases like "unpatriotic" and "un-American" should not dissuade one from standing up for what one believes in, just as teenage posters...who couldn't have been more than 10 years old when Bush took office...do not offend me when they say I suck for hating the man who needlessly caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

As for who supported the troops, I do not find putting bumper stickers on one's SUV while enjoying using the enemy's oil and voting myself tax cuts, so that I don't have to pay for it, "supporting the troops". I do not claim to have "supported the troops" by having opposed the war, but neither will I let such hypocritical claims go unanswered. Supporting the troops is joining up. Supporting the troops is raising your tax burden to pay for the salaries and materiel to fight the war. Americans did none of that. To claim sacrifice in support of the troops is a fraud.

BTW, Rush Limbaugh has never claimed to support the president...nor should he, because he does not. I respect his right to say what he says. I respect my right to say that he is a fat, drug addicted hypocrite.

Thank you for pointing out the biggest hypocrisy of the last 8 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, Rush Limbaugh has never claimed to support the president...nor should he, because he does not. I respect his right to say what he says. I respect my right to say that he is a fat, drug addicted hypocrite.

I don't think that the issue was ever that Rush said that he "doesn't support the president." Obviously he does not, but that by itself isn't a contentious statement. Nor should it be a contentious statement for me to say that I don't support (most of) the president's policies. Nor should it be contentious for someone to say that they hope that Obama fails at fulfilling his campaign promises or his stated policy platform. Nor should it be contentious for someone to say that to the extent that Obama is able to implement bad policy, that that person hopes that the consequences of the bad policy will manifest itself such that voters have second thoughts about voting for future politicians who would continue to support the bad policy.

Rush talks for three hours a day. In communicating, it is guaranteed that he's going to be imprecise from time to time...probably on a minute-by-minute basis if someone wanted to get really anal about semantics. I honestly don't know whether Rush wants to see bad things happen to the United States--it does seem to give him material to work with when bad things do happen, and I'll bet that his ratings are up recently--but I'd suspect that the default answer is that he'd prefer not for bad things to happen. Honestly I don't see what the big deal is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I had the misfortune of hearing Rush Limbaugh the other day.

My capricious mind is unable to comprehend the immeasurably gargantuan single-mindedness that goes into thinking of new ways of saying, "I hate liberals," three hours a day. Every single day. For 20 years. Never pausing for a moment to consider that you might be wrong about something.

And to whoever feels the need to defend Limbaugh as an "entertainer": I find him to be about as "entertaining" as the late George Lincoln Rockwell.

What a dreadful, dreadful human being.

http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh

Edited by Don Julio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So exactly what part of going before the public to profess hatred for someone do you have a problem with? :rolleyes:

Note: I'm not defending Limbaugh.

If I'd devoted 15,000 hours of my life to the single-minded goal of pouring hatred and ridicule upon stereotypes of what I imagine conservative Republicans are on national radio -- and convince myself I was being "patriotic" in the process! -- you might actually have a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'd devoted 15,000 hours of my life to the single-minded goal of pouring hatred and ridicule upon stereotypes of what I imagine conservative Republicans are on national radio -- and convince myself I was being "patriotic" in the process! -- you might actually have a point.

^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the misfortune of hearing Rush Limbaugh the other day.

My capricious mind is unable to comprehend the immeasurably gargantuan single-mindedness that goes into thinking of new ways of saying, "I hate liberals," three hours a day. Every single day. For 20 years. Never pausing for a moment to consider that you might be wrong about something.

And to whoever feels the need to defend Limbaugh as an "entertainer": I find him to be about as "entertaining" as the late George Lincoln Rockwell.

What a dreadful, dreadful human being.

http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh

It's sort of ironic, but I had that same "opportunity" (which I couldn't take it for more than a few minutes), and I wholeheartedly agree. I've listened to him before when he was at least entertaining, but the experience a few days ago was absolutely banal. You can tell that he doesn't believe what he's saying. But it's just as intellectually draining to listen to just about any Republican politician right now...if not more so. They're all trying at once to search for new more popular war cries without stepping on one another's toes, and it just isn't working. That whole Party seems to be coming apart at the seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...