That Fat Bastardo Limbaugh

[SicEmBaylor]

That opportunistic bottom-dwelling fat *** idiot Limbaugh said today, "There's no question this Rand Paul business has totally upset the power structure in Washington. The neocons are paranoid."

I just about vomited when I read that. In MS and HS, I was obsessed with Rush. I listened every day and was a 24/7 subscriber. Even read his books. As I gained the ability to think for myself, I started noticing inconsistencies in his ideology and statements. Small things at first that became bigger and bigger issues for me. What broke the straw of the camel's back for me and caused me to stop listening to Rush entirely was the fact that he was an ABSOLUTE supporter of the GOP's neoconservative agenda. He openly feuded with paleoconservatives (like myself) and libertarians labeling us "nut jobs" and not sufficiently committed to this version of "conservatism." This went on for years. I would listen to his fat *** be completely dismissive of paleocons and libertarians who called his show with concerns.

However, now that the ideological winds within the party are starting to shift, he has climbed his enormous fat *** into the RLC bandwagon and is evidently hoping nobody notices he has been 3 miles deep up the neoconservative *** for the last 10+ years.

Honest to God this level of hypocrisy just absolutely astounds me. ASTOUNDS me.

I'd like to take my boot and kick his *** off the bandwagon before his weight causes the axles to break.

[StoopTroup]

Man, it took you long enough. Now if you'll ever figure out that this Country can't run under an extremist Right Wing Conservative viewpoint anymore than it can run on a extremist left wing Liberal viewpoint, things will get a bit clearer when the sun rises and sets everyday.

[okie52]

That opportunistic bottom-dwelling fat *** idiot Limbaugh said today, "There's no question this Rand Paul business has totally upset the power structure in Washington. The neocons are paranoid."

I just about vomited when I read that. In MS and HS, I was obsessed with Rush. I listened every day and was a 24/7 subscriber. Even read his books. As I gained the ability to think for myself, I started noticing inconsistencies in his ideology and statements. Small things at first that became bigger and bigger issues for me. What broke the straw of the camel's back for me and caused me to stop listening to Rush entirely was the fact that he was an ABSOLUTE supporter of the GOP's neoconservative agenda. He openly feuded with paleoconservatives (like myself) and libertarians labeling us "nut jobs" and not sufficiently committed to this version of "conservatism." This went on for years. I would listen to his fat *** be completely dismissive of paleocons and libertarians who called his show with concerns.

However, now that the ideological winds within the party are starting to shift, he has climbed his enormous fat *** into the RLC bandwagon and is evidently hoping nobody notices he has been 3 miles deep up the neoconservative *** for the last 10+ years.

Honest to God this level of hypocrisy just absolutely astounds me. ASTOUNDS me.

I'd like to take my boot and kick his *** off the bandwagon before his weight causes the axles to break.

Now..now...he is evolving.

[SicEmBaylor]

Man, it took you long enough. Now if you'll ever figure out that this Country can't run under an extremist Right Wing Conservative viewpoint anymore than it can run on a extremist left wing Liberal viewpoint, things will get a bit clearer when the sun rises and sets everyday.
What exactly do you mean, "it took you long enough?" I haven't listened to Rush since 2003.

You clearly either have me confused with someone else or you're associating me with issues, positions, and individuals out of nothing less than absolutely ignorance.

[SicEmBaylor]

Man, it took you long enough. Now if you'll ever figure out that this Country can't run under an extremist Right Wing Conservative viewpoint anymore than it can run on a extremist left wing Liberal viewpoint, things will get a bit clearer when the sun rises and sets everyday.

Let me demonstrate a bit more as to why, once again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. There are so many ways but let me briefly touch on one...

You use the term "right-wing" and "conservative" as if they're interchangeable. They are not. Limbaugh is not a conservative though he is very much right-wing. The two have enough commonality that distinguishing between the two can be difficult for some, or impossible in your case, but there is very much a difference.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Sicem you oughta join up with Sabanball and lsu deek and the other orange aggy and non-Sooner fans, and go. Join the Libertarian or 3rd party board, or get on that Baylor homer board. You hatred is getting old, and misguided. Probably has helped keep the democrats in office.

[yermom]

Sicem you oughta join up with Sabanball and lsu deek and the other orange aggy and non-Sooner fans, and go. Join the Libertarian or 3rd party board, or get on that Baylor homer board. You hatred is getting old, and misguided. Probably has helped keep the democrats in office.

aren't there Rush boards you could post on?

here, i found you one :D

http://www.rushlimbaughforum.com/

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Man, it took you long enough. Now if you'll ever figure out that this Country can't run under an extremist Right Wing Conservative viewpoint anymore than it can run on a extremist left wing Liberal viewpoint, things will get a bit clearer when the sun rises and sets everyday.I don't know what you think makes someone right wing, but it means in the USA follow the constitution and American laws that are constitutional. Respect property rights, and Keep taxation at a reasonable rate to allow the government to perform the activities prescribed by law. Left wing means authoritarian socialism and/or fascism, and lying and dishonesty are allowed, even fostered by Leftists.

[yermom]

you left out the part about pushing your religion on the rest of the world, the military industrial complex, and selling the country to the highest bidder.

[Fraggle145]

Honest to God this level of hypocrisy just absolutely astounds me. ASTOUNDS me.

this is the only thing I dont get in your post. They fat bastard is in it to make money. He really doesnt have an opinion of his own. He wants to make money plain and simple. Oh not to mention cheat on his wife, do drugs, etc... So I dont understand why you are astounded?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

aren't there Rush boards you could post on?Sicem's view of the military and I guess the use or misuse of drugs are what basically differentiates him from what he calls neo-cons.

However, he gets very animated and passionate about attacking fellow conservatives that differ from him only a small amount, compared to the Leftists who are destroying the country. Third party voting helps the Leftists split the conservatives. Limbaugh has engaged in an ongoing attempt to strengthen the republicans, and encouraging the conservatives in the party to be bolder, and not fear the Leftist MSM. It is difficult to be a conservative, unless one has total conviction, and even then, the Media can still destroy a person. Hell, they even get help from some conservatives, like Sicem and goofballs like John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

[diverdog]

Now..now...he is evolving.

No he is cashing in. The dude does know how to make money.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sicem you oughta join up with Sabanball and lsu deek and the other orange aggy and non-Sooner fans, and go. Join the Libertarian or 3rd party board, or get on that Baylor homer board. You hatred is getting old, and misguided. Probably has helped keep the democrats in office.


I don't know what you think makes someone right wing, but it means in the USA follow the constitution and American laws that are constitutional. Respect property rights, and Keep taxation at a reasonable rate to allow the government to perform the activities prescribed by law. Left wing means authoritarian socialism and/or fascism, and lying and dishonesty are allowed, even fostered by Leftists.
You still don't get it and never will...

At any rate, in the United States "right wing" is often but not always synonymous with conservatism. What you are absolutely wrong about is fascism being a left wing ideology....it is not. Fascism is very much a far right ideology which is one reason why right wing and conservatism are not the same thing.

[Blue]

you left out the part about pushing your religion on the rest of the world, the military industrial complex, and selling the country to the highest bidder.

Our govt hates Christianity just as much as you do. You might want to take that out of your repotoire.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Problem with the Republican Party? They dropped their Libertarian roots and became theocrats. Reagan paid lip service to it but didn't follow through.

http://i.imgur.com/OgOx6.png

This last election should've told you all you need to know.

Pat Campbell and Eddie Huff are "conservative" Tulsa talk radio host. They said Ron Paul wasn't hard enough on gay marriage because he wanted to make it a state's rights issue.

Look at our foreign policy. Ron Paul had the best plan but many Bible thumpers think we need to fall on the sword for Israel, who stabs us in the back all the time, or else Jesus will hate us.

Want to make the war on drugs a state's issue? You want school children to have meth. No joke Fox asked Rand that when he campaigned for his father.

The real Republicans (free market Capitalism/individual liberty/obeying the Constitution) were either shunned (Ron Paul) or became Libertarians. The rest just became a bunch of dick drooling statist. Rush Limbaugh is just carrying water for them.

Shredding the Constitution under Bush with the Patriot Act and War on Terror? Good.
Under Obama? Bad and all those supporting this are Neo-cons (even though it's Bush's policy).

TL;DR
When it comes to Rush Limbaugh and the GOP, statist gonna state.

[StoopTroup]

this is the only thing I dont get in your post. They fat bastard is in it to make money. He really doesnt have an opinion of his own. He wants to make money plain and simple. Oh not to mention cheat on his wife, do drugs, etc... So I dont understand why you are astounded?

No kidding. Hypocrisy is just one of those things IMHO that sinning pretty much covers. SicEm is a very young man and I think another 20-30 years on him will change quite a bit of this.

[Blue]

leave Christianity out of it MR2. We could care less about your political posturing. We stand up for the unborn and morals. The GOP stands up for neither. They say they do, but they dont.

Eternity lasts forever. This govt will fall like all the rest. Thats our concern. Alienate christians and you can say goodbye to ever winning another election.

[MR2-Sooner86]

leave Christianity out of it MR2. We could care less about your political posturing. We stand up for the unborn and morals. The GOP stands up for neither. They say they do, but they dont.

Eternity lasts forever. This govt will fall like all the rest. Thats our concern. Alienate christians and you can say goodbye to ever winning another election.

Truth hurts.

Here's the thing, Goldwater was a practicing Christian. He knew the dangers of mixing politics and religion though. He recognized individual liberty and freedom of choice.

Jerry Falwell, who helped with the rise of the religious right, said 9/11 was caused by not condemning homosexuality in this country.

Just because you're a Christian and think your views are the moral way to go doesn't mean you can be an authoritarian *sshole about it. Which is what people like Falwell did.

As for abortion, we talking about "legitimate rape?"

Let's look at the War on Drugs. We have to protect the children and save people from themselves.
- $1 trillion spent with no results
- militarization of the police
- death of the fourth amendment
- 20,000+ civilians killed in Mexico
- an unstable country, Mexico, at our Southern boarder
- South American economies destroyed due to spraying and destroying farmland
- supporting dictators who oppress their citizens but they are hard on the drugs too

Sounds pretty "big government" to me. Thought Republicans were against that?

But hey, just like TSA, we have that illusion that we're actually doing something, right? We can't just let people make their own choices. No, that's crazy talk.

And as bad as the War on Drugs is, it's nowhere near as bad as the monster the War on Terror has created.

Speaking of Israel, which the war drums are being beat to protect them from Iran, why are we defending a country that fired on an unarmed ship (U.S.S. Liberty) of ours?

TL;DR
These are not the actions of the party of supposedly limited government.

[Blue]

We are in line with our beliefs MR but Christians do not equal republicans. I didn't vote last year for the first time since I turned 18. The GOP has lost me as well.

[diverdog]

leave Christianity out of it MR2. We could care less about your political posturing. We stand up for the unborn and morals. The GOP stands up for neither. They say they do, but they dont.

Eternity lasts forever. This govt will fall like all the rest. Thats our concern. Alienate christians and you can say goodbye to ever winning another election.

Lots of truth in what you say. The Republicans really do not want to overturn abortion because it gives them a wedge issue. It is all about politics on both sides with innocent children in the womb continuing to die.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The problems that republicans have is basically what is inherent in their DNA and in how many think. Many conservatives are very principled in how they think. They have a very strong belief system. Libs, despite what many will come on here and try to argue, often just don't have that kind of conviction to the core.

In other words, republicans or conservatives are much more likely to cut off their nose to spite their face. Last election was a great example. Every republican could or at least should have seen what a disaster Obama was and still is. Yet many just refused to vote for Romney because he didn't 100% meet the requirements of their core principles. Romney got less overall votes than McCain. There is no way that should have happened.

Unless the old guard of the GOP realizes this as a problem, they are going to continue to get their asses kicked in general elections. McCain and graham(even my 2 senators) are part of the GOP problem.

The debate in this thread is exactly what I am describing.Yes, and the folks who vote 3rd party are part of the problem as well. Too bad the democrats are a completely lost cause. The laws of mathematics are unwavering.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

At any rate, in the United States "right wing" is often but not always synonymous with conservatism. What you are absolutely wrong about is fascism being a left wing ideology....it is not. Fascism is very much a far right ideology which is one reason why right wing and conservatism are not the same thing. You are correct in that right wing in the USA is conservatism. Conservatism doesn't condone statism, which is what both socialist and fascists do. I don't think this is a complicated thing, so I wonder why you are the one who doesn't "get it".

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Our govt hates Christianity just as much as you do. You might want to take that out of your repotoire.He fears Christians in govt. It's his most passionate expression on this message board, or at least in the political forum.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This last election should've told you all you need to know.

Pat Campbell and Eddie Huff are "conservative" Tulsa talk radio host. They said Ron Paul wasn't hard enough on gay marriage because he wanted to make it a state's rights issue.

Look at our foreign policy. Ron Paul had the best plan but many Bible thumpers think we need to fall on the sword for Israel, who stabs us in the back all the time, or else Jesus will hate us.

Want to make the war on drugs a state's issue? You want school children to have meth. No joke Fox asked Rand that when he campaigned for his father.

The real Republicans (free market Capitalism/individual liberty/obeying the Constitution) were either shunned (Ron Paul) or became Libertarians. The rest just became a bunch of dick drooling statist. Rush Limbaugh is just carrying water for them.

Shredding the Constitution under Bush with the Patriot Act and War on Terror? Good.
Under Obama? Bad and all those supporting this are Neo-cons (even though it's Bush's policy).

TL;DR
When it comes to Rush Limbaugh and the GOP, statist gonna state.Barry Goldwater later in life became a socialist , influenced by his Left Wing wife.

Coming from you, the comments you made certainly don't come as any surprise.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

We are in line with our beliefs MR but Christians do not equal republicans. I didn't vote last year for the first time since I turned 18. The GOP has lost me as well.Sorry to hear that. As flawed as Romney was concerning pure conservatism, it's flabbergasting that you could even come close to thinking the republicans are as bad and anti-American as the democrats.

[SicEmBaylor]

Barry Goldwater later in life became a socialist , influenced by his Left Wing wife.

Coming from you, the comments you made certainly don't come as any surprise.
Barry Goldwater....a socialist? Holy ****ing ****.

[SicEmBaylor]

You are correct in that right wing in the USA is conservatism. Conservatism doesn't condone statism, which is what both socialist and fascists do. I don't think this is a complicated thing, so I wonder why you are the one who doesn't "get it".

I don't know why I get in these Abbot and Costello routines with you...

American conservatism does not support statism. American conservatism is based on the preservation of America's founding principles...namely limited-government and individual liberty.

In the United States, conservatism falls on the right side of the spectrum. The terms "left wing" and "right wing" mean different things in different nations, societies, etc. Actually, more so with "right wing" than "left wing" but I'd be getting into the weeds discussing that...At any rate, it's important to know that the term "right wing" is more universal than American conservatism.

Fundamentally, right-wing beliefs tend to be ultra-nationalist while left-wing politics tends to be anti-nationalist and globalist. Both the left and right wings support movements that are socialistic in various ways. Fascism is far-right because it contains all the elements of being far right...namely a preservation of the national culture, jingoism, ultra-nationalism, distrust of outside influences, and a belief in state support of big business. All of those things make it right-wing.

Now, does that mean that conservatives are fascist? No, it does not because...as I said...conservatism means different things in different countries. The fact that conservatism is on the right side of the scale here does not mean that conservatism is compatible with other far-right groups.

This is an over simplification, but I know I have tried explaining all of this to you a bajillion times before. It's like banging my head against the wall trying to get you to accept basic political concepts.

[SicEmBaylor]

Let me try putting this another way that may better help you understand...

Have you ever wondered why leftists seem somewhat less patriotic than their right brethren here in these United States? The reason is that progressive/liberal/left wing ideas tend to be based upon what they consider to be universal truths and beliefs that are global and not restricted by national borders. By this I mean that a liberal can generally apply their beliefs no matter what society or country you try to apply them in. Their beliefs are global.

Right-wing beliefs, as stated above, tend to be ultra-nationalist. Right-wing beliefs are not global/universal because they're based upon a particular nation or society's own customs and belief systems. This differs wildly from country to country which is why it is absolutely factually incorrect to say that socialism=left and liberty=right. This is absolutely and positively false. Some nations and societies have a long history of strong government control in order to uphold that society's beliefs. Enter fascism....Fascism has elements of socialism because they are ultra-nationalist. Italy's version of fascism wouldn't make sense outside of Italy. Germany's version of Nazism didn't make sense out of Germany. In both of those cases, the emphasis was not on universal truth but upholding a very specific idea of what it means to be both German and Italian. This puts the movement on the right-wing of the spectrum.

Let's go to the United States...

In the United States, conservatives are nationalistic (although I am a sectionalist and anti-nationalist) who fundamentally seek to preserve and protect our founding principles. Some of those principles could be considered universal since our Founding Fathers were quite liberal for their day, but nonetheless conservatives theoretically seek to preserve those principles they see as uniquely American. They seek to preserve the legacy they see has been left from generation to generation that is unique to Americans. For this reason, they're on the right side of the scale.

The reason that American conservatism looks so different from fascism and why many people can't understand why they're both considered right-wing movements is that each individual movement is unique to the specific nation/society in question.

Are you starting to get it yet?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Barry Goldwater....a socialist? Holy ****ing ****.Didn't you know? As he got older he held a lot of socialist views. he had married a leftist woman who no doubt had a lot of influence with him. Think back, after he lost the pres. race to Holy F****** ****Johnson in '64, you didn't hear much from him after that. I moved to Phoenix in '92, and later noticed he indorsed several socialist thinking people for various offices. I heard several people tell me the new wife was hardcore Leftist, and it somehow rubbed off on him.

FWIW, I believe he has 2 sons, Barry jr., whom I don't know much about, and Don, whom I've met several times. He's a very nice guy, and a conservative.

[SicEmBaylor]

Now, you wonder why I don't blindly support the GOP.

Here's why...

American conservatism is supposed to preserve and protect our founding principles of limited-government and individual-rights. The GOP has failed miserably to preserve either of those founding principles. You can argue to me until you're blue in the fact that the GOP is the "lesser of two evils", but I refuse to compromise my beliefs for the sake of short-term political gains. If a candidate or party fails to move the ball toward reducing the size of government and expanding individual liberty then they don't get my support. Plain and simple. I'm not content to be satisfied with absolute mediocrity.

Now, you can accuse me of whatever names you want or accuse me of hurting the cause but take a step back some day, look in the mirror, and ask yourselves which one of us is truly committed to conservatism.

[SicEmBaylor]

Didn't you know? As he got older he held a lot of socialist views. he had married a leftist woman who no doubt had a lot of influence with him. Think back, after he lost the pres. race to Holy F****** ****Johnson in '64, you didn't hear much from him after that. I moved to Phoenix in '92, and later noticed he indorsed several socialist thinking people for various offices. I heard several people tell me the new wife was hardcore Leftist, and it somehow rubbed off on him.

FWIW, I believe he has 2 sons, Barry jr., whom I don't know much about, and Don, whom I've met several times. He's a very nice guy, and a conservative.
You're out of your ****ing mind. Didn't hear much about him? I've read and followed nearly everything he ever did in life. Calling Goldwater a socialist is right up there with calling Ghandi a war monger.

Goldwater was a libertarian Republican and remained so his entire life. He was hostile to elements within the party that were statistis (evangelicals for example) and to that end he sought to end their influence within the party by keeping them out of elected office. Goldwater didn't have a socialist bone in his body and if he did he would have cut it out like a cancer.

And, yes, Barry Goldwater Jr. is still very active in the party and is also a libertarian Republican who endorse and campaigned for Ron Paul.

Calling Goldwater a socialist is the most bat *** ****ing crazy mother ****ing thing I've ever heard.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Sicem, to somebody like the Stooptrouper, it looks as though he thinks right wing in America is something other than conservative, follower of the constitution and constitutionally compatible laws, limited government etc. I contend that fascism and socialism, practically speaking, have in common the control of the government over the economy, whether it be owning means of production or having dictatorial control over a technically private enterprise. The here and now.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sicem, to somebody like the Stooptrouper, it looks as though he thinks right wing in America is something other than conservative
No, he thinks they're exactly the same thing. I'm the one that said they aren't the same thing, and I am right.

follower of the constitution and constitutionally compatible laws, limited government etc.
Right-wing doesn't necessarily mean you do either of those things. Being a proper conservative does, but not necessarily 'right-wing'. Go back and read what I just wrote.

I contend that fascism and socialism, practically speaking, have in common the control of the government over the economy, whether it be owning means of production or having dictatorial control over a technically private enterprise. The here and now.
Now, this is technically true but this has absolutely no relation to the fact that fascism is a far-right wing ideology.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You're out of your ****ing mind. Didn't hear much about him? I've read and followed nearly everything he ever did in life. Calling Goldwater a socialist is right up there with calling Ghandi a war monger.

Goldwater was a libertarian Republican and remained so his entire life. He was hostile to elements within the party that were statistis (evangelicals for example) and to that end he sought to end their influence within the party by keeping them out of elected office. Goldwater didn't have a socialist bone in his body and if he did he would have cut it out like a cancer.

And, yes, Barry Goldwater Jr. is still very active in the party and is also a libertarian Republican who endorse and campaigned for Ron Paul.

Calling Goldwater a socialist is the most bat *** ****ing crazy mother ****ing thing I've ever heard.Sorry, I know what I saw and heard him do, regardless of what you think. I had concern about his soundness of mind when he was doing that indorsing. (democrat or democrats) Whoever is right on this point, what does it matter? I'm glad to hear Jr. is conservative, and that Ron Paul ran as a republican this time, instead of 3rd party. Do you know Don Goldwater?

I don't know if Rand Paul has talked much about his positions on national defense and drugs, but he is an excellent spokesman on the economy, and seems to have the understanding he shouldn't try the 3rd party fiasco route...at least for now.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sorry, I know what I saw and heard him do, regardless of what you think. I had concern about his soundness of mind when he was doing that indorsing. (democrat or democrats) Whoever is right on this point, what does it matter? I'm glad to hear Jr. is conservative, and that Ron Paul ran as a republican this time, instead of 3rd party. Do you know Don Goldwater?

I don't know if Rand Paul has talked much about his positions on national defense and drugs, but he is an excellent spokesman on the economy, and seems to have the understanding he shouldn't try the 3rd party fiasco route...at least for now.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ln63aqdOrs1qj47neo1_250.gif

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Be good, and don't worry too much. The sh*t hit the fan on Nov.6. When and where all of it will land is anybody's guess.

[diverdog]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ln63aqdOrs1qj47neo1_250.gif

LOL

[diverdog]

No, he thinks they're exactly the same thing. I'm the one that said they aren't the same thing, and I am right.

Right-wing doesn't necessarily mean you do either of those things. Being a proper conservative does, but not necessarily 'right-wing'. Go back and read what I just wrote.

Now, this is technically true but this has absolutely no relation to the fact that fascism is a far-right wing ideology.

SicEm:

I worked with Barry Goldwater in an organization called Republicans for Environmental Protection or REP for short. That was back when I was a Republican. He endorsed our work but he died shortly after endorsing REP. I would be curious to know what you thought about his environmental stances and work. Ironically, REP also had a cat named David Foreman who was one of the founders of Eart First! He left EF! after the hippie socialist took over and his arrest by the FBI. Dave was also a former Republican.


. “My mother took us to services at the Episcopal church. Yet she always said that God was not just inside the four walls of a house of worship, but everywhere — in the rising sun over Camelback Mountain in Phoenix, a splash of water along the nearby Salt or Verde rivers, or clouds driving over the Estrella Mountains, south of downtown. I’ve always thought of God in those terms.”
~Barry Goldwater

The three things that drove me from the Republican Party was the neocons, the rabid anti-environmental positions of the party and the influence of the religious right in areas such as the blind support of Israel and interventionist policies in the ME.

RLIMC is a mixture of a social conservative with a lot of neocon tendencies. I think he views himself as a classic conservative.

[SicEmBaylor]

SicEm:

I worked with Barry Goldwater in an organization called Republicans for Environmental Protection or REP for short. That was back when I was a Republican. He endorsed our work but he died shortly after endorsing REP. I would be curious to know what you thought about his environmental stances and work. Ironically, REP also had a cat named David Foreman who was one of the founders of Eart First! He left EF! after the hippie socialist took over and his arrest by the FBI. Dave was also a former Republican.



The three things that drove me from the Republican Party was the neocons, the rabid anti-environmental positions of the party and the influence of the religious right in areas such as the blind support of Israel and interventionist policies in the ME.

RLIMC is a mixture of a social conservative with a lot of neocon tendencies. I think he views himself as a classic conservative.
I'm not familiar with the environmental organization of which you speak; however, Goldwater was a conservationist which is not at all inconsistent with being a conservative. If we're going to conserve our nation's founding principles then accepting at least basic measures of conservation is also a necessity.

We'll all disagree about the extent to which we should conserve, but there is a minimum to which we should all agree. I'm assuming nobody here wants toxic waste thrown into drinking water. I'm assuming we don't want to fill the Grand Canyon with garbage as a massive dump site.

Now of course I have my limits on how far I'm willing to go with that...

[diverdog]

I'm not familiar with the environmental organization of which you speak; however, Goldwater was a conservationist which is not at all inconsistent with being a conservative. If we're going to conserve our nation's founding principles then accepting at least basic measures of conservation is also a necessity.

We'll all disagree about the extent to which we should conserve, but there is a minimum to which we should all agree. I'm assuming nobody here wants toxic waste thrown into drinking water. I'm assuming we don't want to fill the Grand Canyon with garbage as a massive dump site.

Now of course I have my limits on how far I'm willing to go with that...

REP was a very small organization and was developed to lend pro conservation voices to the Republican Party. In its day it was effective but eventually many of us got so fed up with the Republican Party that we left. Most of our members were die hard outdoorsman. Teddy Roosevelt's grandson was also a member.

They invited me in after a lobby event in DC when a Republican Congressman got in my face about being a commie and I told I was still serving in the military, was anti abortion and loved guns. That left him scratching his head. LOL. I will openly admit my political views are all over the map but I did like Barry Goldwater.

[SicEmBaylor]

REP was a very small organization and was developed to lend pro conservation voices to the Republican Party. In its day it was effective but eventually many of us got so fed up with the Republican Party that we left. Most of our members were die hard outdoorsman. Teddy Roosevelt's grandson was also a member.

They invited me in after a lobby event in DC when a Republican Congressman got in my face about being a commie and I told I was still serving in the military, was anti abortion and loved guns. That left him scratching his head. LOL. I will openly admit my political views are all over the map but I did like Barry Goldwater.

I adore Goldwater. More so than even Reagan.

Goldwater was a true believer in allowing the individual to do as he/she damned well pleased. He understood that the true test of liberty is allowing those with whom you disagree to live their lives as they damned well please just as they should allow you to live as you damned well please. He tried his damndest to warn us what the evangelical wing of the Republican party would mean to both the party and the nation, but the party ignored him and embraced them. A true pity -- the GOP would not be in the electoral funk it finds itself in today.

Anyway, I hope the day comes when the Republican party realizes that state control over your finances, gun rights, free speech, etc. are just as egregious as state control over what you can do with your own body, with whom you can sleep, what you choose to watch on TV, etc.

[diverdog]

I adore Goldwater. More so than even Reagan.

Goldwater was a true believer in allowing the individual to do as he/she damned well pleased. He understood that the true test of liberty is allowing those with whom you disagree to live their lives as they damned well please just as they should allow you to live as you damned well please. He tried his damndest to warn us what the evangelical wing of the Republican party would mean to both the party and the nation, but the party ignored him and embraced them. A true pity -- the GOP would not be in the electoral funk it finds itself in today.

Anyway, I hope the day comes when the Republican party realizes that state control over your finances, gun rights, free speech, etc. are just as egregious as state control over what you can do with your own body, with whom you can sleep, what you choose to watch on TV, etc.

Both my parents voted for Goldwater when he ran. I guess as punishment my dad ended up flying Johnson on AF One. Dad could not stand him. Then as further punishment he finished there and went to Vietnam.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Barry Goldwater later in life became a socialist , influenced by his Left Wing wife.

Coming from you, the comments you made certainly don't come as any surprise.

I find it surprising, no wait I don't, that you quoted this but you didn't touch the other thing I said that outlined how the GOP is not what they said they are.

The GOP also can't trash Libertarians because this little nugget is out there.

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism...The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."- Reagan

Again, he didn't follow through.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff310/exlrrp/Rumsfeld-vs-Saddam.gif

Oh look the Reagan Administration meeting with a guy we'd turn our backs on six years later. Oh yeah, remember him spraying his people with in the late 80's with chemical weapons? We sold him the chemicals and the planes to do it with.

http://i.imgur.com/2qJZgYx.jpg

Whoops!

Shall I go on?


Yes, and the folks who vote 3rd party are part of the problem as well. Too bad the democrats are a completely lost cause. The laws of mathematics are unwavering.

It's time to revisit history.

Perot needed 5% in the polls to get into the Presidential debates. He was sitting at around 6% when the first debates happened. The media and public opinion saw him winning those debates, bringing something new to the table, and shaking up the two party system.

In case you forgot, Perot was ahead of both Clinton and Bush and he was ahead of them by strong numbers.

In a three-way match-up nationally, in early June 1992, Perot led with 39%, Bush was second with 31%, while Bill Clinton trailed with 25%, according to Gallup. Perot exited the race during the Democratic convention in mid-July. In the immediate aftermath of the convention, Gallup had Clinton leading Bush 56% to 34%, clearly a post-convention bounce. But a month later, Clinton still led -- by between 17 and 25 points -- in half a dozen national media polls, with President Bush not exceeding 37% of the vote in any of them. In mid-September, with Perot still out of the race, an ABC News/Washington Post poll gave Clinton a commanding 58%, with the incumbent still stuck at a very familiar 37%.

Then, on October 1st, Perot re-entered the race. An October 8-11 poll -- done by the Times Mirror Center for The People & The Press, directed by the outstanding Andrew Kohut -- found that Clinton had dropped to 48%, with Bush at 35%, and Perot at 8% (in mid-September, they had found Clinton leading Bush 53%-38%). An October 20-22 follow-up poll of the same 1,153 voters surveyed earlier in the month found that Clinton had slipped to 44%, while Bush held at 34%, and Perot had jumped to 19%. The very first sentence of the extensive press release, dated October 26, 1992, noted that, “Ross Perot's surge in the polls is drawing somewhat more support from Bill Clinton than from George Bush, and the third party candidate seems poised to make more gains that might further narrow Bill Clinton's nationwide margin.” That press release came out the same morning that Perot’s bizarre charges that Republicans had conspired to ruin his daughter’s wedding floated into the general political consciousness, and that was the end of the Perot surge. Nonetheless, he still drew 19% on Election Day, to Clinton’s 43% and Bush’s 37.5%. (http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm)

If Perot didn't do the following, he might win:
- micromanage everything about his campaign causing his campaign director to quit
- require loyalty oaths of everybody on his campaign, among other things
- suspend his campaign
- reopen his campaign
- make up wild accusations on why he suspended his campaign

Could he have won? We'll never know but Perot shot himself in the foot and damaged his own campaign more than "being an outside third party candidate" did. He also took more from Clinton than Democrats are probably comfortable admitting.

As for the Republicans, George Bush was a sh*tty candidate. Perot didn't hurt your chances, having Bush as your candidate hurt your chances. Let's not forget the NRA did NOT endorse Bush in that election. Things like that hurt him.

Isn't it funny, after that happened, the Democrats and Republicans banned Perot from the '96 debates, even though he had the poll numbers to be allowed there. Isn't it also funny that after '96, they bumped the requirements for third party candidates to get into the debates from 5% in the national polls to 15%. Gee I wonder why that is? Makes sense because the Commission On Presidential Debates, which was created by Republicans and Democrats, control the presidential debates.

I'll now leave you with this:

"What if Democrats and Republicans were two wings of the same bird of prey?
What if elections were actually useful tools of social control?
What if they just provided the populace with meaningless participation in a process that validates an establishment that never meaningfully changes?
What if that establishment doesn't want and doesn't have the consent of the governed?
What if the two-party system was actually a mechanism used to limit so-called public opinion?
What if there were more than two sides to every issue, but the two parties wanted to box you in to one of their corners?
What if there's no such thing as public opinion, because every thinking person has opinions that are uniquely his own?
What if public opinion was just a manufactured narrative that makes it easier to convince people that if their views are different, there's something wrong with that -- or something wrong with them?
What if the whole purpose of the Democratic and Republican parties was not to expand voters' choices, but to limit them?
What if the widely perceived differences between the two parties was just an illusion?
What if the heart of government policy remains the same, no matter who's in the White House?
What if the heart of government policy remains the same, no matter what the people want?
What if those vaunted differences between Democrat and Republican were actually just minor disagreements?
What if both parties just want power and are willing to have young people fight meaningless wars in order to enhance that power?
What if both parties continue to fight the war on drugs just to give bureaucrats and cops bigger budgets and more jobs?
What if government policies didn't change when government's leaders did?
What if no matter who won an election, government stayed the same?
What if government was really a revolving door of political hacks, bent on exploiting the people while they're in charge?
What if both parties supported welfare, war, debt, bailouts and big government?
What if the rhetoric that candidates displayed on the campaign trail was dumped after electoral victory?
What if Barack Obama campaigned as an antiwar, pro-civil liberties candidate, then waged senseless wars while assaulting your rights that the Constitution is supposed to protect?
What if George W. Bush campaigned on a platform of nonintervention and small government, then waged a foreign policy of muscular military intervention and a domestic policy of vast government borrowing and growth?
What if Bill Clinton declared the era of big government to be over, but actually just convinced Republicans like Newt Gingrich that they can get what they want out of big government, too?
What if the Republicans went along with it?
What if Ronald Reagan spent six years running for president promising to shrink government, but then the government grew while he was in office?
What if, notwithstanding Reagan's ideas and cheerfulness and libertarian rhetoric, there really was no Reagan Revolution?
What if all this is happening again?
What if Rick Santorum is being embraced by voters who want small government even though he voted for the Patriot Act, for an expansion of Medicare and for raising the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars?
What if Mitt Romney is being embraced by voters who want anyone but Obama, but don't realize that Romney might as well be Obama on everything from warfare to welfare?
What if Ron Paul is being ignored by the media not because theyclaim he's unappealing or unelectable, but because he doesn't fit into the pre-manufactured public opinion mold used by the establishment to pigeonhole the electorate and create the so-called narrative that drives media coverage of elections?
What if the biggest difference between most candidates was not substance but style?
What if those stylistic differences were packaged as substantive ones to re-enforce the illusion of a difference between Democrats and Republicans?
What if Romney wins and ends up continuing most of the same policies that Obama promoted?
What if Obama's policies, too, are merely extensions of Bush's?
What if a government that manipulated us could be fired?
What if a government that lacked the true and knowing consent of the governed could be dismissed?
What if it were possible to have a game-changer?
What if we need a Ron Paul to preserve and protect our freedoms from assault by the government?
What if we could make elections matter again?
What if we could do something about this?"
- Judge Andrew P. Napolitano January 13, 2012

Stand for your principles, even if you stand alone.

[Ton Loc]

Wait, wasn't this thread about Rush being a fat, drug abusing, wife-cheating on, lying bastard who also happens to be really good at his job - i.e. making money and staying on the air by constantly changing his stance depending on which way the money blows.

Nevermind - things we all agree on never make for the best threads.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Wait, wasn't this thread about Rush being a fat, drug abusing, wife-cheating on, lying bastard who also happens to be really good at his job - i.e. making money and staying on the air by constantly changing his stance depending on which way the money blows...

This is so wrong, and intentionally, or at least negligently produced. Limbaugh's consistency and accuracy are what make his program so popular, and beloved by conservatives. His genius is his thorough understanding of the Left, and being able to call them out, as well as predicting nearly all of their reprehensible actions and statements.

[SicEmBaylor]

This is so wrong, and intentionally, or at least negligently produced. Limbaugh's consistency and accuracy are what make his program so popular, and beloved by conservatives. His genius is his thorough understanding of the Left, and being able to call them out, as well as predicting nearly all of their reprehensible actions and statements.

Limbaugh is decidedly not consistent which is a big reason why I stopped listening to his program. Sure, he may be consistent on an issue-by-issue basis but he is neither ideologically nor philosophically consistent when you take his positions together as a whole. He's also something of a hypocrite considering his personal life v. what he has said on air.

As for him being accurate, it doesn't take a genius to predict how things are going to turn out politically. If you want to talk about accuracy, I'm a hell of a lot more accurate than Rush is. When Rush was predicting a Hillary primary win, I had already predicted an Obama win and posted a stunningly accurate map of how the Electoral College was going to turn out as early as March of 2008. This is back when he was preaching a McCain win. Ditto this past election when he was predicting a Romney win and possible landslide. Once again, I accurately predicted otherwise. I say all of this not to toot my own horn but to point out that if you really study politics, predicting the future is not a very difficult thing to do.

And for whatever gifts Rush possesses in pointing out the "reprehensible" actions and statements of the left, he possesses no such skill in pointing out the same when it comes from our own side.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

As for him being accurate, it doesn't take a genius to predict how things are going to turn out politically. If you want to talk about accuracy, I'm a hell of a lot more accurate than Rush is. When Rush was predicting a Hillary primary win, I had already predicted an Obama win and posted a stunningly accurate map of how the Electoral College was going to turn out as early as March of 2008. This is back when he was preaching a McCain win. Ditto this past election when he was predicting a Romney win and possible landslide. Once again, I accurately predicted otherwise. I say all of this not to toot my own horn but to point out that if you really study politics, predicting the future is not a very difficult thing to do.

And for whatever gifts Rush possesses in pointing out the "reprehensible" actions and statements of the left, he possesses no such skill in pointing out the same when it comes from our own side.He points out what the Left is up to and calls out their intentions and plans better than anyone else in media. He is absolutely the best at that. You can find all sorts of people going after conservatives and even the republicans who aren't so conservative. We all(should) know that.

Limbaugh is also quick to point our republicans who are not behaving conservatively. The ones the Left occasionally cite for bravery and "being reasonable". You know, McCain, Lindsay Graham, Arlen Specter, those types, the RINOS. W Bush on some issues.

Only Rush, Levin and Michelle Malkin, from my observation, have been consistently conservative and unwavering, on virtually any subject they address. Well, maybe Hannity too, but he is certainly BORING.

BTW, Rush might have predicted a win for sir Hillry('08) very early on, but not after Obear came into the picture. It doesn't sound like you really know much about what he says, which should surprise nobody, since you admit to not listening to him.

Kudos to you for predicting an Obear win in '12.The things I don't think anyone is really sure of outside the democrat party are the degree and nature(s) of the voter fraud, including all the activities of illegals.

[SicEmBaylor]

He points out what the Left is up to and calls out their intentions and plans better than anyone else in media.

He doesn't do it better than anyone else -- he's just the most popular.
He is absolutely the best at that. You can find all sorts of people going after conservatives and even the republicans who aren't so conservative. We all(should) know that.
No you can't. I swear to God it's like you live in bizarro world where everything is opposite. There are a bajillion people like Rush. Please point out a nationally known and widely listened to/read/watched political pundit from the Republican side who makes an effort to point out the problems coming from the right?


Limbaugh is also quick to point our republicans who are not behaving conservatively.
No he's not. Not to any measurable extent and those criticisms always ALWAYS take a back seat at election time.
He may criticize but he rewards the behavior by ultimately giving them his support. The ones the Left occasionally cite for bravery and "being reasonable". You know, McCain, Lindsay Graham, Arlen Specter, those types, the RINOS.
Those people aren't RINOs, they're mainstream Republicans.

W Bush on some issues.
HOW BOLD OF HIM!


Only Rush, Levin and Michelle Malkin, from my observation, have been consistently conservative and unwavering, on virtually any subject they address. Well, maybe Hannity too, but he is certainly BORING.
LEVIN?!!?!? You're a troll -- you have to be. Nobody can be that dense.


BTW, Rush might have predicted a win for sir Hillry('08) very early on, but not after Obear came into the picture.
He absolutely positively did NOT. I checked in on Rush's site off and on throughout that campaign season just to find out his predictions. Rush still predicted a Hillary win up until the electoral indicators were such that it was fairly obvious Obama was going to pull out a win in the primary.

I was sitting in class (Modern Western Political Thought) the day that Obama announced his candidacy. We even watched it on TV and discussed it afterward. Nobody thought he had a chance against Hillary except for me. I sat there in class that day and flat out told everyone not only would Obama win the primary but he'd win the general election in a landslide.

Don't give me this **** about Rush believing Obama would beat Hillary from Day-1 because that's a false load of bull****.


Kudos to you for predicting an Obear win in '12.
It was in 2008 and 2012. Read, sir. Read what I post.

Romney didn't lose the 2012 election because of isolated voter fraud. He lost the 2012 election because he was a horrible candidate, he alienated large segments of the population, and he treated the energized and highly motivated libertarian-Republican wing of his party like street criminals.

He deserved to lose and did.

[StoopTroup]

This is precisely how Obama got reelected. Conservatives have it in their DNA to be stubborn and cut off their nose to spite their face.

So true. Also it's sad this turned into a RLIMC vs SicEm Thread. I thought Frosty was on the verge of a breakthrough.

[Petro-Sooner]

Honest question. Wtf is a libertarian?

Simple terms. None of that three paragraph non sense that badger bitch spews.

[SicEmBaylor]

Honest question. Wtf is a libertarian?

I've actually been wanting to write one of my long-winded multi-page diatribes on this very subject. If you wait a day or so, I'll post it.

The very short answer is this: American conservatism, as I've said, is fundamentally the preservation of America's founding principles which at the core are individual-liberty and limited-government. Conservatism and libertarianism are 1st cousins. Libertarianism also believes in maximizing individual liberty and minimizing government.

Here's where the two differ...

Conservatism also carries the belief in maintaining traditional social institutions that may not always be compatible with principles of both limited-government and individual liberty. Drug use is a big example of this. The conservative would say that legalizing drug use would be too detrimental to society therefore it should be illegal thus conflicting with both limited government and individual liberty. The libertarian would disagree and say an individual has the right to do as he/she pleases so long as they aren't hurting anyone else.

An interesting concept that occurred to me a week or two ago is that libertarianism shares a trait with liberalism (probably because libertarianism is classical liberalism) in that the principles and ideas of both libertarianism and liberalism can be globally/universally applied. Unlike conservatism, their ideas are not restricted to any specific nation or society.

[SicEmBaylor]

Let me also say, for the record, that I'm actually not a libertarian. I'm a paleoconservative.

[Petro-Sooner]

Thanks sicem

[olevetonahill]

Its been years an years since I listened to any thing Rush had to say, Even then i just barely listened.
Now as to Affiliation I took a Political quiz once years ago to see where I lined up
It said I was Libertarian/ Border line Anarchist.

I always thot i was a Moderate Conservative :highly_amused:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Honest question. Wtf is a libertarian?

Simple terms. None of that three paragraph non sense that badger bitch spews.a conservative who has no answer for dealing with drugs, and is willing to go isolationist on national defense.

In extreme, damaging cases, they are motivated to attack conservatives who disagree with them on some issues, much more vociferously than the authoritarian hardcore socialists/fascists who are willing to take out America as it has historically been.

[SicEmBaylor]

a conservative who has no answer for dealing with drugs, and is willing to go isolationist on national defense.

In extreme, damaging cases, they are motivated to attack conservatives who disagree with them on some issues, much more vociferously than the authoritarian hardcore socialists/fascists who are willing to take out America as it has historically been.
http://gifs.gifbin.com/1238157980_scanners_-_head_explosion.gif

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Its been years an years since I listened to any thing Rush had to say, Even then i just barely listened.
Now as to Affiliation I took a Political quiz once years ago to see where I lined up
It said I was Libertarian/ Border line Anarchist.

I always thot i was a Moderate Conservative :highly_amused:The founding of the USA certainly didn't prescribe anarchy.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

http://gifs.gifbin.com/1238157980_scanners_-_head_explosion.gifHopefully, you'll figure out what you're doing wrong. Things might be somewhat rougher in this country when you do. I guess that roughness is. what you want.

[SoonerorLater]

The waters are muddied on the whole conservative, liberal, libertartian et.all discussion, because everybody always has their own view of what contitutes the make-up of each group. I always considered my self conservative but I guess the term conservative is relative to the point where you want to start conserving from. In my case about December 15, 1791. Others may think of the Ronald Reagan days as the zenith of conservatism. For the most part no one term describes most people. I think you would find the vast majority of folks have their feet in multiple camps depending on the issue and how close that issue is to them personally.

[yermom]

or you could consider what comes out of Limbaugh's mouth to be the definition

[olevetonahill]

The waters are muddied on the whole conservative, liberal, libertartian et.all discussion, because everybody always has their own view of what contitutes the make-up of each group. I always considered my self conservative but I guess the term conservative is relative to the point where you want to start conserving from. In my case about December 15, 1791. Others may think of the Ronald Reagan days as the zenith of conservatism. For the most part no one term describes most people. I think you would find the vast majority of folks have their feet in multiple camps depending on the issue and how close that issue is to them personally.

Bingo, We have a winner.

[yermom]

Our govt hates Christianity just as much as you do. You might want to take that out of your repotoire.

that's funny. what is that based on?


He fears Christians in govt. It's his most passionate expression on this message board, or at least in the political forum.

yeah, that's not true. i'm afraid of moron Christians running the country.

[SoonerorLater]

that's funny. what is that based on?



yeah, that's not true. i'm afraid of moron Christians running the country.

Do you think aetheists would necessarily run the country better? Hindus? Buddhists whatever?

[SicEmBaylor]

Do you think aetheists would necessarily run the country better? Hindus? Buddhists whatever?

I think the Noble NoZe Brotherhood and their Aqua Buddha God would run the country better. Lorde Mayor for PRESIDENT!

[yermom]

Do you think aetheists would necessarily run the country better? Hindus? Buddhists whatever?

i never said i didn't want Christians running the country. i don't want the religious right pushing their **** on the rest of the country. maybe some people are too dense to understand the difference.

[SoonerorLater]

i never said i didn't want Christians running the country. i don't want the religious right pushing their **** on the rest of the country. maybe some people are too dense to understand the difference.

Well you said "'I'm afraid of moron Christians running the country" This means what? You want non-moron Christians running the country? No reference at all in that post about the "religious right" whoever they may be construed to be.

[yermom]

he said i was afraid of "Christians in gov't" i clarified it to "moron Christians"

there are plenty of Christians, even on this board that i don't have problems with.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well you said "'I'm afraid of moron Christians running the country" This means what? You want non-moron Christians running the country? No reference at all in that post about the "religious right" whoever they may be construed to be.He played the stupid card in defense of the charge against him. Obviously as a member of the right, you have to be too S-T-U-P-I-D to understand.

[olevetonahill]

that's funny. what is that based on?



yeah, that's not true. i'm afraid of moron Christians running the country.



But Dave aint your Opinion of All Christians they are Morons?

[yermom]

there are plenty of devout Christians i don't have a problem with. they aren't pushing it down my throat either though.

i don't suffer hypocrisy well.

there is certain language that will set me off. and promoting "small government" while at the same time pushing Puritanical values through laws on others is one of them.

[okie52]

there are plenty of Christians, even on this board that i don't have problems with.

Praise the lord.

[olevetonahill]

there are plenty of devout Christians i don't have a problem with. they aren't pushing it down my throat either though.

i don't suffer hypocrisy well.

there is certain language that will set me off. and promoting "small government" while at the same time pushing Puritanical values through laws on others is one of them.

I aint a Christian and dont really GAS. Even when I was a Preacher I dint do the Hypocrisy thing. I dint drank the wine when I preached . I dont drank the BS now.

[Blue]

If every Christian worried about being a hypocrite every time they spoke up for the cross, nobody would ever say anything.

My govt/Christian comment Yermom had to do with DC. Interfaith "church services" that include everyone short of the Wiccans held in a "christian" church that marries homosexuals is about as Christian as a pagan moon dance.

Yes you will have Christians that want a small govt and moral laws. Imagine that. Thats not going to change. I understand you pointing out that irony, but things like abortion should be non negotiable. Everything else I agree. The govt doesn't legislate my morality and I dont look to them to do so.

Where the Christian church has gone wrong especially in the US is that we are not seperated enough. People should look at us and see a difference. The difference being the holy spirit. They should see the body of Christ. If we were doing our job, people would want to be a part of it bc "it" is God. But what we have are cultural christians that talk the talk but do not walk the walk. They are mired in worldy sin and worldy problems and they are not living a life of victory. Christians in name only. And I am guilty of this as well. The only thing we can do is stop doing the things that cause grief (turn from ourselves) and turn to God. And believe that everything is going according to his plan and that he is on the throne and in complete control. And inturn do better in showing love and giving ourselves (serving) him and each other.

[SicEmBaylor]

If every Christian worried about being a hypocrite every time they spoke up for the cross, nobody would ever say anything.

My govt/Christian comment Yermom had to do with DC. Interfaith "church services" that include everyone short of the Wiccans held in a "christian" church that marries homosexuals is about as Christian as a pagan moon dance.

Yes you will have Christians that want a small govt and moral laws. Imagine that. Thats not going to change. I understand you pointing out that irony, but things like abortion should be non negotiable. Everything else I agree. The govt doesn't legislate my morality and I dont look to them to do so.

Where the Christian church has gone wrong especially in the US is that we are not seperated enough. People should look at us and see a difference. The difference being the holy spirit. They should see the body of Christ. If we were doing our job, people would want to be a part of it bc "it" is God. But what we have are cultural christians that talk the talk but do not walk the walk. They are mired in wordly sin and wordly problems and they are not living a life of victory. Christians in name only. And I am guilty of this as well. The only thing we can do is stop doing the things that cause grief (turn from ourselves) and turn to God. And believe that everything is going according to his plan and that he is on the throne and in complete control. And inturn do better in showing love and giving ourselves (serving) him and each other.

True story -- I attended a Wiccan ceremony on gallows hill in Salem on Halloween. It was extremely interesting and the people there were as nice as they could be.

[Blue]

True story -- I attended a Wiccan ceremony on gallows hill in Salem on Halloween. It was extremely interesting and the people there were as nice as they could be.

Cool?

[SicEmBaylor]

Cool?

I'm just sayin' don't knock the Wiccans. They're good folk -- peaceful and they love nature. Not exactly my cup of tea, but there's nothing wrong with them whatsoever.

[Blue]

I'm just sayin' don't knock the Wiccans. They're good folk -- peaceful and they love nature. Not exactly my cup of tea, but there's nothing wrong with them whatsoever.

Ha. Yes I will knock the wiccans. Nothing wrong except the fact that they practice dark arts and IMO call on demonic entities. But other than that...

Keep in mind this is my opinion. There are good people everywhere, but unfortunately when compared to a perfect God, we all fall short.

[olevetonahill]

Its ALL smoke and Mirrors.

[Blue]

Its ALL smoke and Mirrors.

What is your truth if you dont mind me asking, OV? You've seen alot, done alot. What are the smoke and mirrors covering up in your opinion?

[okiewaker]

:confused:.,,:mad:,,,:cool:

[olevetonahill]

What is your truth if you dont mind me asking, OV? You've seen alot, done alot. What are the smoke and mirrors covering up in your opinion?

Bro Yes Ive seen it, Lived thru it. Even preached it .

It comes down to the SIMPLE fact of WHAT do YOU believe?
I prefer to NOT be a stumbling block to a Believer, Thats Bible.
I prefer to let Every one work out their OWN salvation with FEAR and Trembling. Thats Bible
The Catholics , While not writing the Bible , Only let in the Books THEY approved. Hence we have the Apocrypha.
Why I cant follow the Catholics Dogma.That and the Fact they get to rewrite History.

Im good with it. Simply IF you believe IT then it works for me.
I Belive YOU have the right to Believe what you want.

[Blue]

Bro Yes Ive seen it, Lived thru it. Even preached it .

It comes down to the SIMPLE fact of WHAT do YOU believe?
I prefer to NOT be a stumbling block to a Believer, Thats Bible.
I prefer to let Every one work out their OWN salvation with FEAR and Trembling. Thats Bible
The Catholics , While not writing the Bible , Only let in the Books THEY approved. Hence we have the Apocrypha.
Why I cant follow the Catholics Dogma.That and the Fact they get to rewrite History.

Im good with it. Simply IF you believe IT then it works for me.
I Belive YOU have the right to Believe what you want.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh and lived a perfect life, claiming salvation and eternal life if we believe in him and him who sent him, was put to death and rose from the dead conquering sin and death forever? That his friends who witnessed this wrote the gospels and later died as martyrs bc of their faith?

You don't have to answer that if you don't want. Just curious bc you were a former preacher.

[olevetonahill]

Do you believe that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh and lived a perfect life, claiming salvation and eternal life if we believe in him and him who sent him, was put to death and rose from the dead conquering sin and death forever? That his friends who witnessed this wrote the gospels and later died as martyrs bc of their faith?

You don't have to answer that if you don't want. Just curious bc you were a former preacher.

Personally? NOW? How about I just say I've become an Agnostic. Obviously I DID believe it at ONE time Hence Im NOW a FORMER ordained Minister.

Really thot I was Called of GOD even spoke in Tongues and saw People Healed By the Power of Prayer.
Then I saw Little kids Die for No reason, Saw so much .

So like I said Believe It and Live it.
Ill pray for you .

[okiewaker]

:confused:

[olevetonahill]

:confused:

:very_drunk:

[diverdog]

Personally? NOW? How about I just say I've become an Agnostic. Obviously I DID believe it at ONE time Hence Im NOW a FORMER ordained Minister.

Really thot I was Called of GOD even spoke in Tongues and saw People Healed By the Power of Prayer.
Then I saw Little kids Die for No reason, Saw so much .

So like I said Believe It and Live it.
Ill pray for you .


Vet was a preacher? Boy I did not see that one coming. I guess any thing is truly possible. Lol.

[okiewaker]

:confused:

:very_drunk:

:D

[olevetonahill]

Vat was a preacher? Boy I did not see that one coming. I guess any thing is truly possible. Lol.

Bro, I been everywhere Man Ive been everywhere

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov4epAJRPMw

[olevetonahill]

Oh and Done Bout EVERYTHING,:very_drunk:

[olevetonahill]

Scuse ME while I kiss the sky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBd1hBT9vNc

[okiewaker]

Scuse ME while I kiss the sky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBd1hBT9vNc

Heh..

[olevetonahill]

Heh..

You dint have time to watch So yer Heh gets discounted.
Heh

[olevetonahill]

I am one of the FEW that Have been there DONE that, And Lived to tell about it. Regardless of that One posters thought's I have NEVER bragged about anything . I just survived

[okiewaker]

Heh..

You dint have time to watch So yer Heh gets discounted.
Heh

Seent it already,,U Tube.

[olevetonahill]

Seent it already,,U Tube.

Lived it . So cool

[olevetonahill]

I need to STFU. :very_drunk:

[okiewaker]

Time for bed!!!:confused:

[olevetonahill]

Time for bed!!!:confused:

No, Cant sleep now, Just need to STFU . a couple of Posters will be sayin Im looking for Pity or some ****.

[olevetonahill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3krjPWs_7E&list=PLA2B9CFE9A0C11981

[olevetonahill]

Now Im Out, Thats all the glimpse in my life Yall get :very_drunk:

[diverdog]

Now Im Out, Thats all the glimpse in my life Yall get :very_drunk:

You got the ghey too? Knock me over with a stick. Who da thunk it.

All these confessions last night must have been like taking a big ole ****. Bet you feel better now. :very_drunk:

[pphilfran]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3krjPWs_7E&list=PLA2B9CFE9A0C11981

I wore that 8 track out...probably my most listed to song was Magic Carpet Ride...

[pphilfran]

Music in the 60's was inundated with anti war implications...a small sampling...

Oh, and thanks for serving, Vet...I was just a couple of years too young or I would have been over there with ya...
Country Joe and the Fish

Well, Come On All Of You, Big Strong Men,
Uncle Sam Needs Your Help Again.
He's Got Himself In A Terrible Jam
Way Down Yonder In Vietnam
So Put Down Your Books And Pick Up A Gun,
We're Gonna Have A Whole Lotta Fun.

And It's One, Two, Three,
What Are We Fighting For ?
Don't Ask Me, I Don't Give A Damn,
Next Stop Is Vietnam;
And It's Five, Six, Seven,
Open Up The Pearly Gates,
Well There Ain't No Time To Wonder Why,
Whoopee! We're All Gonna Die.

Grace Slick

I've Got His Arm
I've Got His Arm
I've Had It For Weeks
I've Got His Arm
Steven Won't Give His Arm
To No Gold Star Mother's Farm;
War's Good Business So Give Your Son
And I'd Rather Have My Country Die For Me.

Chicago

Hey, Everybody
Won't You Just Look Around
Can't Anybody See
Just What's Going Down
Can't You Take The Time
Just To Feel
Just To Feel What Is Real
If You Do
Then You'll See That We Got A Raw Deal
They're Killing Everybody
They're Killing Me And You
They're Killing Everybody
I Wish It Weren't True
They Say We Got To Make War
Or The Economy Will Fall
But If We Don't Stop
We Won't Be Around No More
They're Ruining This World
For You And Me
The Big Heads Of State
Won't Let Us Be Free
They Made The Rules Once
But It Didn't Work Out
Now We Must Try Again
Before They Kill Us Off
No More Dying!
No More Killing
No More Dying
No More Fighting
We Don't Want To Die
No, We Don't Want To Die

Neil Young

Tin Soldiers And Nixon's Bombing
We're Finally On Our Own
This Summer I Hear The Drumming
Four Dead In Ohio

Graham Nash

Soldiers of peace are not fighting a war
Are not looking for enemies behind every door
Are not looking for people to kill or to maim.
Soldiers of peace are just changing the game.

Sabbath - my favorite

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

[MR2-Sooner86]

Let me also say, for the record, that I'm actually not a libertarian. I'm a paleoconservative.

Wuss!

[MR2-Sooner86]

http://gifs.gifbin.com/1238157980_scanners_-_head_explosion.gif

Notice he "skipped" over that Reagan quote about libertarianism.

And speaking of drugs:

"I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves." - Reagan

Anybody with an I.Q. above room temperature knows the drug laws on marijuana and cocaine were to oppress minorities in the 20s and 30s. All those lies, and they were, about gateway drug, mental health, etc were proven false in the La Guardia Committee which the Federal Government hasn't been able to debunk to this day.

Not to mention the man who holds the world record for smoking the most marijuana, Irvin Rosenfeld, got it from the Federal Medical Cannabis Patient's in 1982. Who was president in 1982?

As for foreign policy, he doesn't understand the differences between isolationism and non-interventionism because nobody wrote it out in crayon for him.

Switzerland - non-intervention foreign policy
North Korea - isolationist

Neo-cons don't agree with free market Capitalsim and would rather shoot people than trade with them.

But don't get your panties in a bunch over this.

Let's remember that Rush Limbaugh was caught with Viagra on a flight from the Domincan Republican (called a pedophiles Disney Land due to all the underage sex trafficing) with four guys. This guy screams about locking up kids with a joint yet spent thousands to get himself out of trouble with pain pills, which are far worse than marijuana.

Rush, and his followers, aren't thr intellectual superheroes they think they are. I look at them like I do Santorum: bigoted statist who want you to live by their moral rules and their moral rules alone.

[SicEmBaylor]

Notice he "skipped" over that Reagan quote about libertarianism.

And speaking of drugs:

"I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves." - Reagan

Anybody with an I.Q. above room temperature knows the drug laws on marijuana and cocaine were to oppress minorities in the 20s and 30s. All those lies, and they were, about gateway drug, mental health, etc were proven false in the La Guardia Committee which the Federal Government hasn't been able to debunk to this day.

Not to mention the man who holds the world record for smoking the most marijuana, Irvin Rosenfeld, got it from the Federal Medical Cannabis Patient's in 1982. Who was president in 1982?

As for foreign policy, he doesn't understand the differences between isolationism and non-interventionism because nobody wrote it out in crayon for him.

Switzerland - non-intervention foreign policy
North Korea - isolationist

Neo-cons don't agree with free market Capitalsim and would rather shoot people than trade with them.

But don't get your panties in a bunch over this.

Let's remember that Rush Limbaugh was caught with Viagra on a flight from the Domincan Republican (called a pedophiles Disney Land due to all the underage sex trafficing) with four guys. This guy screams about locking up kids with a joint yet spent thousands to get himself out of trouble with pain pills, which are far worse than marijuana.

Rush, and his followers, aren't thr intellectual superheroes they think they are. I look at them like I do Santorum: bigoted statist who want you to live by their moral rules and their moral rules alone.

In all honesty, I have a political bromance brewing with you.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

In all honesty, I have a political bromance brewing with you.It isn't any wonder. He lists erroneous claims and makes accusations that the Left and militant libertarians such as yourself want to believe.

The tactic is just like the Left uses. Throw out all sorts of stuff that isn't true or draws incorrect conclusions. in any case, Rush tells the truth, and exposes the horsesh*t from the Left and the militant 3rd partiers, as well as bad ideas and actions by those in the republican party. The intent by Sicem and MR2-Sooner86, as well as the Leftists on this board, is to discourage people from listening to him. If it works on you, it's your loss and the country's as well.

[yermom]

i would like to see this list of erroneous claims and accusations

[SicEmBaylor]

It isn't any wonder. He lists erroneous claims and makes accusations that the Left and militant libertarians such as yourself want to believe.
What erroneous claims, precisely, has he made? MR2 very articulately counters arguments made by others and presents his own arguments replete with evidence to support his positions. He does addresses each point made by others directly, so I'm pretty curious about these erroneous claims and accusations he's supposedly making.


The tactic is just like the Left uses. Throw out all sorts of stuff that isn't true or draws incorrect conclusions.
For example?

In any case, Rush tells the truth, and exposes the horsesh*t from the Left and the militant 3rd partiers,
Militant? Seriously? So because someone believes something other than you do and supports a party other than your own, they're militant? Let me tell you, the Republican party's dismissal of those people are the reason they aren't in the party to begin with and it's the reason the Republican Party is losing national elections and turning into a regional rather than national party.

The intent by Sicem and MR2-Sooner86, as well as the Leftists on this board, is to discourage people from listening to him. If it works on you, it's your loss and the country's as well.
I do discourage people from listening to him. I encourage people to educate themselves on the issues, political philosophy, current events, the political players themselves, and use all of that information to draw your own conclusions.

If people educate themselves there is absolutely no reason to listen to Rush. I understand that a lot of people are working and don't have time to educate themselves on all of this, but listening to Rush Limbaugh in order to get your daily marching orders is anything but necessary or, frankly, productive.

I refuse to be a slave to anyone else's beliefs or thoughts.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

i would like to see this list of erroneous claims and accusationsYou have. Read through his stuff again, if you want to go to the trouble. Explore it thoroughly if you want. Some statements are simply misleading, designed to get the reader to worry about Limbaugh's imperfections. You should listen to Limbaugh's show, instead of caring that he makes a lot of money and had a drug use problem that he admitted to.(or being worried about his love or sex life) He's very well spoken and goes after the folks that advocate socialism, directly or indirectly, and are always pushing for power beyond that which is authorized by law.

I was surprised to see Sicem upset that Limbaugh had congratulated Rand Paul(the republican) for calling out the president. We need lots of folks in politics do that. I believe the MSM hasn't gone after Rand Paul yet because the hardcore Libertarians (those who vote 3rd party)have been a big help to democrats at the voting booth, and Rand's father, while he is now republican, was a former Libertarian, and provided a half vote, in effect, when he ran 3rd party.

It appears that Ron has come to understand he has his best chances of success(votes) are as a republican, and Rand too, gets it. Not all conservatives or republicans agree on everything, but on the issues of economic freedoms, and use of the constitution as a guide to political behavior, at least for now, the opportunity for success is in the republican party. It most certainly isn't with the democrats, or with anything that helps them.

[SicEmBaylor]

You have. Read through his stuff again, if you want to go to the trouble. Explore them thoroughly if you want. Some are simply misleading, designed to get the reader to worry about Limbaugh's imperfections. You should listen to Limbaugh's show, instead of caring that he makes a lot of money and had a drug use problem that he admitted to.(or being worried about his love or sex life) He's very well spoken and goes after the folks that advocate socialism, directly or indirectly, and are always pushing for power beyond that which is authorized by law.

I was surprised to see Sicem upset that Limbaugh had congratulated Rand Paul(the republican) for calling out the president. We need lots of folks in politics do that. I believe the MSM hasn't gone after Rand Paul yet because the hardcore Libertarians (those who vote 3rd party)have been a big help to democrats at the voting booth, and Rand's father, while he is now republican, was a former Libertarian, and provided a half vote, in effect, when he ran 3rd party.

It appears that Ron has come to understand he has his best chances of success(votes) are as a republican, and Ron too, gets it. Not all conservatives or republicans agree on everything, but on the issues of economic freedoms, and use of the constitution as a guide to political behavior, at least for now, the opportunity for success is in the republican party.
Jesus-H-Christ'O. I don't know where you get your crazy. Ron Paul was/has been a Republican his entire life. The only time he left the party was to run for President in 1988 as a Libertarian. Bush won that election in a landslide. Paul's candidacy had no impact whatsoever. That was 25 years ago. 25 years ago! For God's sake you act like Ron Paul just recently came back into the party.

And, once again, nobody who educates themselves has any reason to listen to Rush Limbaugh or any other radio host except purely out of entertainment. I do read other pundits from time to time, but I don't sit and listen to the radio and take whatever Rush says as my daily marching orders and talking points.

At any rate, if you're going to read or listen to someone then please may I suggest listening to Jack Hunter. Rush cannot begin to match Jack Hunter and before you start to refute me on that, keep in mind that I listened to Rush religiously for years and you have never heard of much less listened to Jack Hunter.

Go read his stuff or watch him then come back and tell me, specifically, what you liked or didn't like about what he said.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I have no aversion to listening to any talk show that isn't Leftist or suggests 3rd party voting. I will try to find his show here in the Phoenix area.

You should try Limbaugh again. I contend you have missed a lot of good insight by not listening to him. He, as any good talk show host, studies lots of written and broadcast goings on daily, which is a good service in itself. He has a proper opinion of the Left, and is able to shine a strong light on their commissions and omissions.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This excerpt is from Wikipedia:

Political views
Hunter is known for often providing commentary from a paleoconservative viewpoint, as he sees the liberal internationalism that is found in the Democratic Party and the neoconservatism that is prominent in the Republican Party to be ultimately indistinguishable from one another, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. He has also been highly critical of fellow conservative talk radio hosts such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Cunningham, and most famously Mark Levin for putting what he perceives to be their Republican Party allegiances before true conservative principles.

Sicem, he appears to be a 3rd partier, and dislikes Limbaugh and Levin.

No, I'm not surprised. But, thanks.

[SicEmBaylor]

I have no aversion to listening to any talk show that isn't Leftist or suggests 3rd party voting. I will try to find his show here in the Phoenix area.

You should try Limbaugh again. I contend you have missed a lot of good insight by not listening to him. He, as any good talk show host, studies lots of written and broadcast goings on daily, which is a good service in itself. He has a proper opinion of the Left, and is able to shine a strong light on their commissions and omissions.

http://www.southernavenger.com/

[SicEmBaylor]

This excerpt is from Wikipedia:

Political views
Hunter is known for often providing commentary from a paleoconservative viewpoint, as he sees the liberal internationalism that is found in the Democratic Party and the neoconservatism that is prominent in the Republican Party to be ultimately indistinguishable from one another, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. He has also been highly critical of fellow conservative talk radio hosts such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Cunningham, and most famously Mark Levin for putting what he perceives to be their Republican Party allegiances before true conservative principles.

Sicem, he appears to be a 3rd partier, and dislikes Limbaugh and Levin.

No, I'm not surprised. But, thanks.
Here's a crazy thought: Instead of reading a wiki article about him, why don't you just go to his webpage and read something he wrote or watch some of his video commentary? Like I said earlier, I don't listen to him to get information. I do that on my own. However, he is an excellent voice for the movement.

Or you can just continue to be ignorant. Ignorance is bliss and nobody is more blissful than you.

[diverdog]

Here's a crazy thought: Instead of reading a wiki article about him, why don't you just go to his webpage and read something he wrote or watch some of his video commentary? Like I said earlier, I don't listen to him to get information. I do that on my own. However, he is an excellent voice for the movement.

Or you can just continue to be ignorant. Ignorance is bliss and nobody is more blissful than you.


WTF is going on with Paul's hair? That mange looks like some sort of chia pet gone wild. If it were running on the floor I would shoot it because honestly that thing scares the **** out of me.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Here's a crazy thought: Instead of reading a wiki article about him, why don't you just go to his webpage and read something he wrote or watch some of his video commentary? Like I said earlier, I don't listen to him to get information. I do that on my own. However, he is an excellent voice for the(third party, let's attack the republicans instead of the devoted socialists) movement.

Or you can just continue to be ignorant. Ignorance is bliss and nobody is more blissful than you.Ah the mental deficiency card. Good play. You please let us know here how Jack Hunter's views are different than what it says in the Wiki I quoted, or any different from yours.

Make no mistake. We have a dramatically changed country from what it was in '06, and a '14 win for democrats in the House of Reps will really put the concrete in the well, at least for a very significant period of time.

[SicEmBaylor]

WTF is going on with Paul's hair? That mange looks like some sort of chia pet gone wild. If it were running on the floor I would shoot it because honestly that thing scares the **** out of me.

We call it 'Liberty Hair', Mr. Pinko.

[FaninAma]

I am an ex-ditto head and have been Rush Limbaugh free for 10 years. It was exactly the same reason that SicEm has already illiterated and the same reason I watch Fox sparingly. I will not frequent a medai outlet that loses their objectivity toward a political party. I love it when Breitbart.com busts the establishment GOP members chops over and issue.

[champions77]

That opportunistic bottom-dwelling fat *** idiot Limbaugh said today, "There's no question this Rand Paul business has totally upset the power structure in Washington. The neocons are paranoid."

I just about vomited when I read that. In MS and HS, I was obsessed with Rush. I listened every day and was a 24/7 subscriber. Even read his books. As I gained the ability to think for myself, I started noticing inconsistencies in his ideology and statements. Small things at first that became bigger and bigger issues for me. What broke the straw of the camel's back for me and caused me to stop listening to Rush entirely was the fact that he was an ABSOLUTE supporter of the GOP's neoconservative agenda. He openly feuded with paleoconservatives (like myself) and libertarians labeling us "nut jobs" and not sufficiently committed to this version of "conservatism." This went on for years. I would listen to his fat *** be completely dismissive of paleocons and libertarians who called his show with concerns.

However, now that the ideological winds within the party are starting to shift, he has climbed his enormous fat *** into the RLC bandwagon and is evidently hoping nobody notices he has been 3 miles deep up the neoconservative *** for the last 10+ years.

Honest to God this level of hypocrisy just absolutely astounds me. ASTOUNDS me.

I'd like to take my boot and kick his *** off the bandwagon before his weight causes the axles to break.

Congrats, the hatred for Rush that you show here puts you in the same camp as the haters on the far left, who have hated him for years, why? For telling the non politically correct truth and exposing the flawed ideology of liberalism. You even resort to the predictable name calling that is usually associated with people who don't have a cogent opposing view. Nice.

[SicEmBaylor]

Congrats, the hatred for Rush that you show here puts you in the same camp as the haters on the far left, who have hated him for years, why? For telling the non politically correct truth and exposing the flawed ideology of liberalism. You even resort to the predictable name calling that is usually associated with people who don't have a cogent opposing view. Nice.

Nobody likes to name call more than Rush does. It's his "thing" and part of his schtick.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I am an ex-ditto head and have been Rush Limbaugh free for 10 years. It was exactly the same reason that SicEm has already illiterated and the same reason I watch Fox sparingly. I will not frequent a medai outlet that loses their objectivity toward a political party. I love it when Breitbart.com busts the establishment GOP members chops over and issue.

I've been free of that fat windbag for at least a dozen years. I also stopped watching the Sunday morning talk shows. It's all party line talking points and you know what these guys are going to say before they say it. The problem with our politics these days is that if you can't melt your argument down to an 8 second soundbite or catch phrases you might as well be talking to a brick wall.

[champions77]

Nobody likes to name call more than Rush does. It's his "thing" and part of his schtick.

So you hate him for doing it...and then you do it?

[SicEmBaylor]

So you hate him for doing it...and then you do it?
No, I never said I hated him for the name calling. The name calling is irrelevant to me -- I'm just pointing out that you ought not slam me for the name calling when the man you're protecting is far more guilty of it than I am.

The reason I don't like Rush is that he's a neconservative opportunistic hypocrite who is jumping on the very bandwagon of the people who he has spent years and years disparaging and dismissing.......often with name calling.

He's an entertainer who appeals to a large group of conservatives who don't know any better than to accept what he says as the platinum standard of conservatism. Nothing could be further from the truth. That's my problem with Rush.

[8timechamps]

This will probably fall on deaf ears, but here goes...

I, like Sic'em, was an avid Rush fan in HS and part of college. At some point, it hit me that Rush is part of the problem in this country. Rush sells his product of "good vs evil", and people buy it, a lot of people. There is no middle ground for Rush, no reasoning. Anything that goes against what he believes to be right is clearly an effort to turn this country into the former Soviet Union. Look, I respect when people hold to their beliefs, it's the mark of a good character. However, when everyone takes a side, and refuses to move even an inch, it's not good for anyone.

The left doesn't get a pass either, for every Rush out there, there is a left counterpart. Folks that think anything that comes from a Republican is wrong and in some way an effort to punish the poor and reward the rich.

I'm sick of it all. The *******s in Washington (on both sides of the isle) are so caught up in playing politics, this country is turning into a giant vagina and nobody wants to do what's right for the people for fear they will upset their pub/dem contingent.

Rush just symbolizes (to me) why nothing gets done on Capitol Hill.

[MR2-Sooner86]

What erroneous claims, precisely, has he made? MR2 very articulately counters arguments made by others and presents his own arguments replete with evidence to support his positions. He does addresses each point made by others directly, so I'm pretty curious about these erroneous claims and accusations he's supposedly making.

You'll have a better chance getting hard enough to beat off to a photo of a naked Yoko Ono than getting an honest answer out of him.

The reason you won't get one is he can't provide one. He relies on others to form his opinion. Besides it's hard to think when carrying all that water for the GOP. Now, I'm not saying he can't counter my arguments because I'm right and have the superior view politically, morally, economically, and philosophically, but I'm right and have the superior view politically, morally, economically, and philosophically.

I've already provided my points and it's obvious Rush's Mini-Me on this site has blown a fuse. With that said I'll take a victory lap.

Remember the NDAA? Rush was against it...

Only after Obama signed it.

Don't believe me? Let's go to his own site:

RUSH: I can't believe that nobody's talking about this: The thing Obama signed on New Year's Eve, the new Defense Authorization Act. I don't know if people don't know what's in this or if other things take precedence. Well, it is being reported because I saw it. I saw it reported. Obama signed this thing, the new Defense Authorization Act on New Year's Eve. Folks, you know what this thing does? It allows the United States military to detain anybody for no reason! They don't even have to charge you. I mean, this is specified. This is not the Patriot Act. This is way beyond. This is total authoritarianism. This is the kind of stuff that exists in Third World banana republics. The government can detain anybody! All they have to do... They actually don't have to do anything.

They just have to say they suspect you of terrorism.

They don't have to prove it. They don't have to have any evidence. They can charge you. They can put you away in a jail. You are not allowed a lawyer. You are not allowed habeas corpus. It's the most amazing thing. Obama even issued a signing statement with it in which he said: Don't worry, I'm not going to do this. Don't worry, I'm not gonna do it. Well, he can, as can anybody in the military, as can any future president. They can just decide to detain you. For no reason. I mean, literally no reason. Where is the left on this? Where are the civil libertarians? This is... You can talk about Bush and the Patriot Act all you want if you're a leftist and a Democrat. Where are you people? This is the biggest affront to the whole notion of civil rights that I can recall. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/03/regime_grabs_power_to_detain_us_citizens)

What Rush fails to mention is this thing passed with heavy, heavy Republican support in both houses of Congress. In fact it was a Republican who said on the floor of the Congress that you have no constitutional rights if you're a suspected terrorist.

Guess who one of those "civil libertarians" was, that's right, Rand Paul.


http://youtu.be/fpfS62zrmAQ

Why didn't Rush mention it? Because, at the time, Rand's dad Ron Paul, who was also very outspoken about this, was running for president. Rush hated Ron Paul so giving him any positive credit would've been counterproductive.

Representative Justin Amash, a proclaimed libertarian in thought and Ron Paul supporter, was against this bill.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, a libertarian, with his own Fox News show at the time, and Ron Paul supporter, was outspoken against this bill.
Liberals including, but not limited to, Cenk Uygar (supported Rand's filibuster so much he tried to get pizza delivered to him on the floor of Congress) and Keith Olbermann were against this bill.

Guess who proposed an amendment to the NDAA taking out the language Rush was upset about? That's right, an evil Democrat by the name of Mark Udall who had the ACLU (the same ACLU that supported Rand's filibuster) support him.

Rush, like many he demonizes, is a statist. He doesn't want the Democrat's big government. He just want the GOP's. Many of these "violations of the Constitution" started under Bush. Where was his outrage then? He didn't have it because it was his statist doing the stating.


Checkmate.

[StoopTroup]

I adore Goldmember.

Yeah Baby! :wink:

[StoopTroup]

No, I never said I hated him for the name calling. The name calling is irrelevant to me -- I'm just pointing out that you ought not slam me for the name calling when the man you're protecting is far more guilty of it than I am.

The reason I don't like Rush is that he's a neconservative opportunistic hypocrite who is jumping on the very bandwagon of the people who he has spent years and years disparaging and dismissing.......often with name calling.

He's an entertainer who appeals to a large group of conservatives who don't know any better than to accept what he says as the platinum standard of conservatism. Nothing could be further from the truth. That's my problem with Rush.
I heard he is an Author. :)

[SicEmBaylor]

I heard he is an Author. :)

Yes, yet even he knows basic grade school level punctuation and capitalization rules.

[champions77]

Yes, yet even he knows basic grade school level punctuation and capitalization rules.

Maybe I need to listen more closely to Rush. I know the far left hates him with a passion, and when they hate someone, I usually find myself agreeing with the hatee. To say that Rush is not a conservative, is kind of like saying that BHO is not a liberal. Maybe instead of getting bogged down on every word Rush says, look at his position with respect to policy. From what I can determine, Rush is for defending the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, he feels this virtues this country was founded on like personal responsibility, hard work and self reliance are the keys to our greatness and they are being undermined with the result being a welfare/nanny state, he feels we should always maintain a strong military, he feels the Federal Government has become way too big, too powerful and too overbearing, he feels that the majority of power should rest with the states, not in Washington D.C., and he feels that taxes in this country are way too high, the tax code too obtrusive.

For this is a called out as a "Fat Bastardo"? Like I said if you consider yourself a conservative, then you are falling in line with the leftists that would dance in the streets if Rush died. Not me.

[SicEmBaylor]

Maybe I need to listen more closely to Rush. I know the far left hates him with a passion, and when they hate someone, I usually find myself agreeing with the hatee.
That is intellectually lazy.

To say that Rush is not a conservative, is kind of like saying that BHO is not a liberal.
Actually, it isn't at all like saying that. Once again, you're confusing right-wing with conservative. I'm not going to rehash everything I've said ad-nauseam but Rush is a right-wing nationalist. He is not a conservative.

Maybe instead of getting bogged down on every word Rush says, look at his position with respect to policy.
This is the problem. Rush does not have a unified set of principles which is one of the reasons that I stopped listening to him. He has a series of positions and those positions are very often inconsistent with one another and even, at times, inconsistent with the Constitution and our founding principles. That's why I don't listen to him.

From what I can determine, Rush is for defending the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, he feels this virtues this country was founded on like personal responsibility, hard work and self reliance are the keys to our greatness and they are being undermined with the result being a welfare/nanny state, he feels we should always maintain a strong military, he feels the Federal Government has become way too big, too powerful and too overbearing, he feels that the majority of power should rest with the states, not in Washington D.C., and he feels that taxes in this country are way too high, the tax code too obtrusive.

And here is where you are dead wrong. Rush has always valued shot-term policy wins over any of the philosophical positions you just mentioned. In fact, he has never been a big fan of states' rights when it gets right down to it. I don't want to tredge up a War of Northern Aggression argument here, but Rush has always been a big big fan of Lincoln who did more to destroy states' rights than any other President in US History. Lincoln, like Rush, was a right-wing nationalist who centralized power in Washington D.C. at the expense of state power and at the expense of the US Constitution which had created a delicate balance between state and Federal power. Now, this is just one example but it's an example of how Rush is extremely inconsistent in his beliefs. There is no unified set of principles present when it comes to Rush.

Or we could talk about his belief in denying the right of states to decide their own marriage policy when Constitutionally it is clearly a state matter. By this I'm referencing his belief in DOMA.

Or we could talk about his stated beliefs in drug policy which are consistent with neither individual liberty nor limited government.

Or we could talk about his support for nation building which is inconsistent with the beliefs of many of our Founding Fathers, especially Jefferson's Republicans. It's impossible to have a big government abroad without a big robust government at home which is another inconsistency with Rush.

The list goes on and on and on. Rush is a set of policy positions that favor right-wing nationalism. That does not make him a conservative.


For this is a called out as a "Fat Bastardo"? Like I said if you consider yourself a conservative, then you are falling in line with the leftists that would dance in the streets if Rush died. Not me.

Let me educate you on a point that I have tried, desperately, to get across to RLIMC over the years. Like 8x, I am not interested in "us v. them" politics. I'm not interested in molding my opinion to ensure that I don't commit the sacrilege of agreeing with the "other side" on an issue or an opinion about a particular individual. Like I said, that is intellectually lazy. If there are people on our own side doing a disservice to the cause of limited-government and individual liberty then I'm not interesting in endorsing that individual purely because they're supposedly on the same side. The idea that you have to like someone because the other side hates them is utterly asinine and stupid. The idea that you have to make your beliefs fit conventional wisdom so that you don't appear to be agreeing with the other side on anything is intellectually lazy.

I'm not interested in that. Limbaugh is a gas bag who is ideologically inconsistent -- whether the left hates/loves him is totally and completely irrelevant to me.

[StoopTroup]

Dead Wrong? Intellectually lazy?

He had almost as many words as you did.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Consistency huh? Following the constitution? The overuse of state power?

Let's go back to the NDAA that Rush was so fired up about.


http://youtu.be/D1yY3NCiMVQ

Romney said he would've signed what Obama signed. Where was Rush's outrage? Where were his calls to vote for anybody but Romney since he held the same views as Obama?

Romney was the establishment's choice so calling him another Obama, which he was, would've been counterproductive.

Double checkmate.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Sic,

Your political posts have always been hit and miss with me. One "I completely agree." post is usually followed by "WTF is wrong with him?" post. In this thread, I have read every post and everything you've said I couldn't agree more on. You've summed up my opinions in a lot of these.

Eagerly awaiting a "WTF" post,

STEP

[SicEmBaylor]

Sic,

Your political posts have always been hit and miss with me. One "I completely agree." post is usually followed by "WTF is wrong with him?" post. In this thread, I have read every post and everything you've said I couldn't agree more on. You've summed up my opinions in a lot of these.

Eagerly awaiting a "WTF" post,

STEP

Give it time. I'm sure we'll get there sooner rather than later! :D

[MR2-Sooner86]

I'm still waiting for my "erroneous claims" to be pointed out and debunked.

As for the accusations, please clear things up for me if I'm so wrong.

A guy returns from Las Vegas with his male friends. He had Viagra in his luggage. Either the buddies had a "close" night in the hotel room or they took a trip outside the city limits to visit a certain type of house. Why else is it there?

Same thing happened with Rush. He was on a plane with a bunch of guys and they traveled to a country known for its underage prostitution. Either Rush is a closet homosexual or they visited some places you won't find in the U.S. Why else would he have the Viagra?

[okie52]

I'm still waiting for my "erroneous claims" to be pointed out and debunked.

As for the accusations, please clear things up for me if I'm so wrong.

A guy returns from Las Vegas with his male friends. He had Viagra in his luggage. Either the buddies had a "close" night in the hotel room or they took a trip outside the city limits to visit a certain type of house. Why else is it there?

Same thing happened with Rush. He was on a plane with a bunch of guys and they traveled to a country known for its underage prostitution. Either Rush is a closet homosexual or they visited some places you won't find in the U.S. Why else would he have the Viagra?

Maybe Rush thought he would get lucky? Because a country has underage prostitution doesn't mean he wouldn't sleep with a consenting adult. Hell, lot's of guys in the US would travel with viagra.

[okie52]

Actually, it isn't at all like saying that. Once again, you're confusing right-wing with conservative. I'm not going to rehash everything I've said ad-nauseam but Rush is a right-wing nationalist. He is not a conservative.



Sic em...you have a problem with someone being a nationalist...as in a conservative nationalist? Or is it just a right wing nationalist?

[Midtowner]

Congrats, the hatred for Rush that you show here puts you in the same camp as the haters on the far left, who have hated him for years, why? For telling the non politically correct truth and exposing the flawed ideology of liberalism. You even resort to the predictable name calling that is usually associated with people who don't have a cogent opposing view. Nice.

While you didn't call a name, your entire post is an ad hominem. Do you have anything to say about the actual statement?

I find this whole discussion interesting.

I was once an Objectivist Conservative until I realized it was all bullcrap and that we all have to live with each other and that if we were to employ an absolute objectivist social policy, we'd have to accept that the occasional person or child would starve because they were not worth enough for society to keep them alive, and that sort of social policy tends to lead to bloody revolutions.

[okie52]

While you didn't call a name, your entire post is an ad hominem. Do you have anything to say about the actual statement?

I find this whole discussion interesting.

I was once an Objectivist Conservative until I realized it was all bullcrap and that we all have to live with each other and that if we were to employ an absolute objectivist social policy, we'd have to accept that the occasional person or child would starve because they were not worth enough for society to keep them alive, and that sort of social policy tends to lead to bloody revolutions.

And how would you describe yourself now?

[Midtowner]

Social libertarian/fiscal pragmatist.

[KantoSooner]

Sort of a J.S. Mill/Barry Goldwater/Henry Cabot Lodge sort of thingie? Maybe call in Hayek on the knottier econ questions?

Sounds pretty comfy to me.

[Midtowner]

Sort of a J.S. Mill/Barry Goldwater/Henry Cabot Lodge sort of thingie? Maybe call in Hayek on the knottier econ questions?

Sounds pretty comfy to me.

I think Keynes has a lot to offer as well. I think there's a middle ground between he and Hayek. Sometimes deficit spending is the smart thing to do. The trouble we've had is ordering short term deficit spending which quickly becomes permanent. A good example of some Keynesian thinking which panned out was the Wall Street bailout. A friend of mine sits on the boards of some pretty big companies and was genuinely worried about what would happen if the bailout didn't come through.

On the other side of that, I'm appalled that after taking that short term hickey, we have so far come up with an anemic federal agency with very limited powers as our "solution."

Democrats should be hammered for not offering real solutions like the reinstatement of Glass Steagall. Republicans are even worse because they've actively worked to undo any progress we've made. Democrats should also be pilloried for being in power and not prosecuting the big banks and as Elizabeth Warren suggested, take a few of them to trial to set an example.

[pphilfran]

I am proud to say that I have never listened to 1 minute of Rush...

[KantoSooner]

Sorry, I parted company with Keynes long ago. I don't buy trying to 'steer' the economy, much less operate as the biggest entity within it.

And, yes, big corps were quite worried about what would happen in 08-09. So? Capitalism thrives when you have fear and greed vying. We have not had 'fear' among major players for generations. Good to get some back. Healthy. If everyone working on Wall Street in 2007 were suddenly out of work and forbidden to work in the banking sector again, for life, what difference would it make? Were any of them thinking then? No. They were all, or 99% at any rate, lemmings. Let them go do something productive with their lives. They could pick veggies in Socal, understand we'll need that after the Mexicans leave. Lower wage scale, but honest work.
Would it really have been any worse? I don't really think so. Instead, the good Keynesians just taught another generation of bankers that they need not pay any attention, because Uncle Sugar and the poor dupes who make up the American public will be forced to bail out the rascals when they screw the pooch.

I love my fellow man just fine. And I will help him out when he needs it. Mostly. But don't put a gun to my head and tell me that the money thus extorted is 'charity'.

Reread Hayek, you'll be surprised at how gentle he really is, without sacrificing his core principles.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I am proud to say that I have never listened to 1 minute of Rush...

But you're also a communist so it's understandable.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sic em...you have a problem with someone being a nationalist...as in a conservative nationalist? Or is it just a right wing nationalist?
I'm not big on nationalism in general. Political power and loyalty, especially in this country, should work from the individual up and not the other way around.

I consider myself a sectionalist.

[okie52]

Social libertarian/fiscal pragmatist.

Wouldn't a social libertarian let someone die from starvation rather than have government provide for them? Or is that where your fiscal "pragmatism" kick in?

[okie52]

I'm not big on nationalism in general. Political power and loyalty, especially in this country, should work from the individual up and not the other way around.

I consider myself a sectionalist.

Hmm...that would be true whether you are a sectionalist or a nationalist. Hard to be a sectionalist when you are a part of a country.

Are you for secession?

[Midtowner]

Wouldn't a social libertarian let someone die from starvation rather than have government provide for them?

No, the fiscal pragmatist would see that $1.00 in SNAP spending increases GDP by $1.79 and that ensuring childhood nutrition needs are being met, down the road will lead to a more able, both in terms of physical and mental ability, workforce. I also realize that if I cease social spending and allow people to starve, pretty soon, I'll have a literal violent insurrection on my hands and that's bad for growth.


Or is that where your fiscal "pragmatism" kick in?

I'm not one to believe in absolute truths. I think each situation has an ideal outcome or multiple ideal outcomes or at least a least bad outcome which can only be reached through studying all of the alternatives and figuring out which one benefits the most people. We're all stakeholders here. I don't believe in a United States existing solely to prop up a monied oligarchy and I don't believe in a United States which provides everything for everyone. There's a happy middle ground.

The social libertarian is more about social issues, e.g., rape, gay marriage, etc. In that context, my right to stop you from swinging your fist ends at my nose.

[pphilfran]

But you're also a communist so it's understandable.
I miss the Motherland...

[okie52]

No, the fiscal pragmatist would see that $1.00 in SNAP spending increases GDP by $1.79 and that ensuring childhood nutrition needs are being met, down the road will lead to a more able, both in terms of physical and mental ability, workforce. I also realize that if I cease social spending and allow people to starve, pretty soon, I'll have a literal violent insurrection on my hands and that's bad for growth.



I'm not one to believe in absolute truths. I think each situation has an ideal outcome or multiple ideal outcomes or at least a least bad outcome which can only be reached through studying all of the alternatives and figuring out which one benefits the most people. We're all stakeholders here. I don't believe in a United States existing solely to prop up a monied oligarchy and I don't believe in a United States which provides everything for everyone. There's a happy middle ground.

The social libertarian is more about social issues, e.g., rape, gay marriage, etc. In that context, my right to stop you from swinging your fist ends at my nose.

Well that's where the devils in the details. I see your fiscal conservatism overriding your social libertarianism on feeding the people. I don't have a problem with a "safety net" but I do see feeding the poor as charity rather than a government mandate even if it makes economic sense as well as being socially moral to do so.

[yermom]

No, the fiscal pragmatist would see that $1.00 in SNAP spending increases GDP by $1.79 and that ensuring childhood nutrition needs are being met, down the road will lead to a more able, both in terms of physical and mental ability, workforce. I also realize that if I cease social spending and allow people to starve, pretty soon, I'll have a literal violent insurrection on my hands and that's bad for growth.



I'm not one to believe in absolute truths. I think each situation has an ideal outcome or multiple ideal outcomes or at least a least bad outcome which can only be reached through studying all of the alternatives and figuring out which one benefits the most people. We're all stakeholders here. I don't believe in a United States existing solely to prop up a monied oligarchy and I don't believe in a United States which provides everything for everyone. There's a happy middle ground.

The social libertarian is more about social issues, e.g., rape, gay marriage, etc. In that context, my right to stop you from swinging your fist ends at my nose.

that's just crazy talk

[okie52]

No, the fiscal pragmatist would see that $1.00 in SNAP spending increases GDP by $1.79 and that ensuring childhood nutrition needs are being met, down the road will lead to a more able, both in terms of physical and mental ability, workforce. I also realize that if I cease social spending and allow people to starve, pretty soon, I'll have a literal violent insurrection on my hands and that's bad for growth.



I'm not one to believe in absolute truths. I think each situation has an ideal outcome or multiple ideal outcomes or at least a least bad outcome which can only be reached through studying all of the alternatives and figuring out which one benefits the most people. We're all stakeholders here. I don't believe in a United States existing solely to prop up a monied oligarchy and I don't believe in a United States which provides everything for everyone. There's a happy middle ground.

The social libertarian is more about social issues, e.g., rape, gay marriage, etc. In that context, my right to stop you from swinging your fist ends at my nose.

So as a fiscal pragmatist, would you support raising the tax rate on capital gains?

[KantoSooner]

Mid -"...the fiscal pragmatist would see that $1.00 in SNAP spending increases GDP by $1.79..."

Okay, then, NOW we're gettin' somewhere!

I've got this thing SOLVED boyo's!!

Here's the plan. We need $16 Tril to get this debt monkey off our backs. Now, at a general tax rate of something like 28% (rough across the board guess), we need $57 trillion of increase in GDP to get there. (16/.28=57.14)
Now, using your figure of $1 SNAP = $1.79 GDP dollars, that means that we need $57.14/1.79 in SNAP spending to get the necessary tax revenue! Huzzah! All we need to do is to print up $31.92 Trillion and go buy some FOOD, damnit!
And our debt issues are SOLVED!

Thank you, John Maynard Keynes.

Damn, had I only known it was so easy!!!!

I'm so happy now.

[SicEmBaylor]

Hmm...that would be true whether you are a sectionalist or a nationalist.
That's not really true. Nationalists reject sectional/regional interests which they believe come secondary to national needs. The individual is expected to pledge his loyalty to the national state (which is one reason I don't like the pledge of allegiance). The end result is that power becomes increasingly centralized.


Hard to be a sectionalist when you are a part of a country.
Not at all. Especially not with the way our Constitution is designed whereby the Federal government is only supposed to have the right to act on those issues that no one state or region could act alone....such as foreign policy or settling disputes between two or more states.


Are you for secession?
I'm absolutely in favor of the right of people to abolish existing political bonds, establish new political ties, and form governments of their own choosing. So, yes, I absolutely favor secession when there is popular support to do so.

Now whether I think it's a good idea would depend entirely upon the circumstances.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Mid -"...the fiscal pragmatist would see that $1.00 in SNAP spending increases GDP by $1.79..."

Okay, then, NOW we're gettin' somewhere!

I've got this thing SOLVED boyo's!!

Here's the plan. We need $16 Tril to get this debt monkey off our backs. Now, at a general tax rate of something like 28% (rough across the board guess), we need $57 trillion of increase in GDP to get there. (16/.28=57.14)
Now, using your figure of $1 SNAP = $1.79 GDP dollars, that means that we need $57.14/1.79 in SNAP spending to get the necessary tax revenue! Huzzah! All we need to do is to print up $31.92 Trillion and go buy some FOOD, damnit!
And our debt issues are SOLVED!

Thank you, John Maynard Keynes.

Damn, had I only known it was so easy!!!!

I'm so happy now.

Even Keynes couldn't straight faced make up a multiplier where you get a 79% return on a gubment dollar spent. Hell, **** the stock market. Where can I get some SNAP bonds.

[Midtowner]

Well that's where the devils in the details. I see your fiscal conservatism overriding your social libertarianism on feeding the people. I don't have a problem with a "safety net" but I do see feeding the poor as charity rather than a government mandate even if it makes economic sense as well as being socially moral to do so.

It's not charity, it's keeping the mob in check with a lot of it. Other things are a moral imperative, i.e., caring for the disabled and the elderly. I'm also in favor of the government utilizing the massive economies of scale that only the government can utilize. I also believe that the federal government, at least in the administrative sector is a little more insulated from corruption than local and state governments, which basically operate for the benefit of political donors.

I'd love to see the government pursue policies to cull the herd, so to speak, e.g., incentivize sterilization for men and women with either child welfare cases or who have received a certain threshold of public support. It'd of course be decried as eugenics and whatnot, but it could have the effect of slowing generational poverty. As to spending, our problem in Washington is twofold--a dogmatic approach to things which has paralyzed our nation's governing bodies and a tacit agreement between both parties that we are willing to spend more than we have revenue to pay for on an ongoing basis. Social spending has to happen for the children. I've seen very positive interactions between families and social safety nets and wouldn't dream of getting rid of that, but we need to do a better job of bringing children out of poverty than we're doing now.

I think the courts should treat both sides fairly and that maybe there needs to be a discussion about a loser pays system with some protections built in for the little guy, while we also discuss public finance for ALL criminal defendants as well as getting rid of jury caps. Let juries do what they do and if the judge or an appellate court think that as a matter of law, what a jury does is excessive, trust the system to work. Caps simply put a price tag on some of the worst malfeasance around, thus pushing corporate actors to be able to determine if their product in its life will kill X children and that'll cost Y to fix, if Y < cost of killing X children, then they will choose to kill X children as that's what's profitable. Judicial appointments should be untouchable, except for high crimes or misdemeanors, but judges should be forced to retire at 80.

[Midtowner]

So as a fiscal pragmatist, would you support raising the tax rate on capital gains?

Sure. Someone has to pay for current spending and it can't be the middle class. They've got nothing left in the tank. I'd be in favor of hiking capitol gains on personal income tax returns past somewhere in the neighborhood of $500K to $1MM.

And while we're at it, an estate/gift tax past $5MM sounds reasonable.

[okie52]

That's not really true. Nationalists reject sectional/regional interests which they believe come secondary to national needs. The individual is expected to pledge his loyalty to the national state (which is one reason I don't like the pledge of allegiance). The end result is that power becomes increasingly centralized.


Not at all. Especially not with the way our Constitution is designed whereby the Federal government is only supposed to have the right to act on those issues that no one state or region could act alone....such as foreign policy or settling disputes between two or more states.


I'm absolutely in favor of the right of people to abolish existing political bonds, establish new political ties, and form governments of their own choosing. So, yes, I absolutely favor secession when there is popular support to do so.

Now whether I think it's a good idea would depend entirely upon the circumstances.

The concept is the same. A person is going to be loyal to his section unless it is supplanted by a larger governing institution. You've just reduced the size of the loyalty to a section rather than a country.

You already know our federal government intervenes in areas that would reduce state authority...constitutional or otherwise. If the feds decreed no nukes which is really the current status anyway, no state is going to build a nuke whether it is regionally supported or not. That is one reason why I say it is hard to
be a sectionalist...the feds won't let just your section succeed if it is deemed to be at the expense of the country on the whole.

[okie52]

Sure. Someone has to pay for current spending and it can't be the middle class. They've got nothing left in the tank. I'd be in favor of hiking capitol gains on personal income tax returns past somewhere in the neighborhood of $500K to $1MM.

And while we're at it, an estate/gift tax past $5MM sounds reasonable.

Ahh, but where is the fiscal pragmatism? Capital gains hikes have always shown it reduces tax revenues.

[Midtowner]

Ahh, but where is the fiscal pragmatism? Capital gains hikes have always shown it reduces tax revenues.

We haven't tried 'em on amounts in excess of $500K-$1MM, so that's an unknown. I'm just saying we take money from those who can most afford it.

And you should be careful about terms like "always." Zero capital gains would definitely not increase overall revenues.

While we're on the subject, I'd also like a fee of something on the order of $.01/trade on every financial transaction conducted in the U.S. Not something the ordinary stockholder would notice, but it'd kill those high speed traders which don't do anything but play numbers games with money while creating no value for anyone.

[okie52]

We haven't tried 'em on amounts in excess of $500K-$1MM, so that's an unknown. I'm just saying we take money from those who can most afford it.

And you should be careful about terms like "always." Zero capital gains would definitely not increase overall revenues.

Always being relative to any illustration I've seen about it...but lets just go with the last 40 years.

Taking money from those that can afford it isn't always being fiscally pragmatic...in fact many cases will show that tax increases retard growth.

Sometimes trimming the budget is fiscally pragmatic...sometimes its not.

[okie52]

It's not charity, it's keeping the mob in check with a lot of it. Other things are a moral imperative, i.e., caring for the disabled and the elderly. I'm also in favor of the government utilizing the massive economies of scale that only the government can utilize. I also believe that the federal government, at least in the administrative sector is a little more insulated from corruption than local and state governments, which basically operate for the benefit of political donors.

I'd love to see the government pursue policies to cull the herd, so to speak, e.g., incentivize sterilization for men and women with either child welfare cases or who have received a certain threshold of public support. It'd of course be decried as eugenics and whatnot, but it could have the effect of slowing generational poverty. As to spending, our problem in Washington is twofold--a dogmatic approach to things which has paralyzed our nation's governing bodies and a tacit agreement between both parties that we are willing to spend more than we have revenue to pay for on an ongoing basis. Social spending has to happen for the children. I've seen very positive interactions between families and social safety nets and wouldn't dream of getting rid of that, but we need to do a better job of bringing children out of poverty than we're doing now.

I think the courts should treat both sides fairly and that maybe there needs to be a discussion about a loser pays system with some protections built in for the little guy, while we also discuss public finance for ALL criminal defendants as well as getting rid of jury caps. Let juries do what they do and if the judge or an appellate court think that as a matter of law, what a jury does is excessive, trust the system to work. Caps simply put a price tag on some of the worst malfeasance around, thus pushing corporate actors to be able to determine if their product in its life will kill X children and that'll cost Y to fix, if Y < cost of killing X children, then they will choose to kill X children as that's what's profitable. Judicial appointments should be untouchable, except for high crimes or misdemeanors, but judges should be forced to retire at 80.

Oh I didn't argue about taking care of the poor, the elderly, children, etc...beyond the conflict of social libertarianism vs fiscal pragmatism. It may make perfect fiscal sense to do those things but I still see it as charity on a social front.

I'm for whatever works...that is pragmatism...isn't it? I have no problem going commie if it would be shown to be better than capitalism. The Swiss healthcare system appeals to me and it is pretty socialistic with the right touch of capitalism.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Maybe I need to listen more closely to Rush. I know the far left hates him with a passion, and when they hate someone, I usually find myself agreeing with the hatee. To say that Rush is not a conservative, is kind of like saying that BHO is not a liberal. Maybe instead of getting bogged down on every word Rush says, look at his position with respect to policy. From what I can determine, Rush is for defending the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, he feels this virtues this country was founded on like personal responsibility, hard work and self reliance are the keys to our greatness and they are being undermined with the result being a welfare/nanny state, he feels we should always maintain a strong military, he feels the Federal Government has become way too big, too powerful and too overbearing, he feels that the majority of power should rest with the states, not in Washington D.C., and he feels that taxes in this country are way too high, the tax code too obtrusive.

For this is a called out as a "Fat Bastardo"? Like I said if you consider yourself a conservative, then you are falling in line with the leftists that would dance in the streets if Rush died. Not me. He does it in most of his political posts. I don't know why he insists on repeating the lies and exaggerations, but it is the same things the Left does. He tells us all the terrible things Rush does, and then brags that he doesn't even listen to him. It's obvious he doesn't listen to Limbaugh.

[Midtowner]

Always being relative to any illustration I've seen about it...but lets just go with the last 40 years.

Taking money from those that can afford it isn't always being fiscally pragmatic...in fact many cases will show that tax increases retard growth.

Sometimes trimming the budget is fiscally pragmatic...sometimes its not.

It's just as imperative for the government to attempt to keep its citizens off of the welfare roles and into the middle class as it is keeping the government from being overwhelmed by a bunch of overimportant super wealthy oligarchs. It's never good for a country to have wealth distribution like we have right now. The oligarch class has rigged the game in their favor. I just want to un rig it. You're right to say we've had a little growth recently, but since '08 or so, the vast majority of the growth of wealth has been at the top of the food chain at the expense of those in the middle.

[SicEmBaylor]

He does it in most of his political posts. I don't know why he insists on repeating the lies and exaggerations, but it is the same things the Left does. He tells us all the terrible things Rush does, and then brags that he doesn't even listen to him. It's obvious he doesn't listen to Limbaugh.
And it's obvious you don't listen to me. I almost never missed an episode of Rush from when I was in 4th grade to 2003/2004ish. I taped every episode, watched his TV show, ordered his ties, read his books, and became a 24/7 subscriber. I checked in frequently on his website and what he was saying for the 2008 Presidential election out of morbid curiosity.

What I say comes not from ignorance. He appeals to the masses, but he shouldn't be taken seriously as a source for discerning what conservatism is all about. He's inconsistent as hell philosophically.

[champions77]

He does it in most of his political posts. I don't know why he insists on repeating the lies and exaggerations, but it is the same things the Left does. He tells us all the terrible things Rush does, and then brags that he doesn't even listen to him. It's obvious he doesn't listen to Limbaugh.

And to admit that he "used" to listen to Rush, but doesn't anymore? Rush has stayed pretty consistent throughout his time on the radio. IF he "used" to listen to Rush, and now thinks he's a Fat Bastardo, maybe he's the one who has changed. Hey I don't agree with Rush all the time anymore than I agree with my wife all the time, but as long as he is in "attack mode" on the likes of Obama, Pelosi and Reid, and all the rest that want to "fundamentally" change this country, then I will be behind him and what he does. His years of exposing the fallacies and lies of the left should be commended...and celebrated.

His actions must bother the left, because they sure expend a lot of time and energy in attacking him. The "Fairness Doctrine" should be called the Limbaugh doctrine. Liberals not too fond of the First Amendment, or any of the Bill of Rights for that matter.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And it's obvious you don't listen to me. I almost never missed an episode of Rush from when I was in 4th grade to 2003/2004ish. I taped every episode, watched his TV show, ordered his ties, read his books, and became a 24/7 subscriber. I checked in frequently on his website and what he was saying for the 2008 Presidential election out of morbid curiosity.

What I say comes not from ignorance. He appeals to the masses, but he shouldn't be taken seriously as a source for discerning what conservatism is all about. He's inconsistent as hell philosophically.I do listen to you, and you foster 3rd party horsesh*t, knowing full well that you are recommending what amounts to a half vote for the totally broken democrat party. You just said Rush is inconsistent, when you should know that consistency is one of his attributes. He often discusses ideas and actions politicians should espouse to strengthen the country, and they are ALWAYS conservative.

The most important reality that you always ignore is that if a conservative person can't win the republican primary, then they (due to simple math) have no chance of being elected. That fact doesn't seem to alarm you. In fact, you're determined to attempt to get people to believe the republicans are all as damaged and unfit as the democrats. It makes no sense.

[TUSooner]

Anyone, I say ANYONE, who thinks their simple theory is the Answer to Everything on Earth is dangerously full of turds. This includes all the utopians, be they neo-cons, bolsheviks, worshippers of Austrian economics, or religious nuts. It includes people like SicEm, and Rush's Clone-Parrot, and Rush, and Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan and Rand Paul and the slew of rightwing rug chewers on this board and in the Tea Party. Why? Because they all value ideological and theoretical "purity" over practical solutions to real life problems involving flesh and blood humans. The fanatic's "perfect" is the enemy of what's merely "good" for the rest of us. Fundamental principles are a necessary guide, but they are not the end in themselves. Conservatives like Reagan and Goldwater knew this, many liberals also know this. Fanatics do not, whether they are leftist or rightists or any other people who can't accept facts that don't fit within their theories. These fanatics used to be anarchists or communists or fascists, nowadays they mostly call themselves conservatives or Republicans or libertarians or -- God have mercy -- "Christians" (might as well be Muslim or Hindu fanatics). They're all dangerous. Mankind has never yet come up with the perfect economic or political system. And if you think "your guys" have done so, and that they should have free reign to jam their theoretical reality down everyone else's throat, you are are a ****ing idiot and a dangerous one at that.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Funny, Mini-Rush and champion keep spewing the verbal diarrhea about "consistency" and "values" fully ignoring the post that debunked that multiple times.

I'm still waiting for my "erroneous claims" to be pointed out and debunked.

As for Rush's morals...


Maybe Rush thought he would get lucky? Because a country has underage prostitution doesn't mean he wouldn't sleep with a consenting adult. Hell, lot's of guys in the US would travel with viagra.

Even then, it doesn't paint him in a good light.

The official stance of the Republican Party is to promote abstinence only sex education, and it's against prostitution of any kind legal or not.

So if he hired a legal, of age, prostitute then he's a hypocrite.
If he had sex outside of marriage he's a hypocrite there as well.

[okie52]

Funny, Mini-Rush and champion keep spewing the verbal diarrhea about "consistency" and "values" fully ignoring the post that debunked that multiple times.

I'm still waiting for my "erroneous claims" to be pointed out and debunked.

As for Rush's morals...



Even then, it doesn't paint him in a good light.

The official stance of the Republican Party is to promote abstinence only sex education, and it's against prostitution of any kind legal or not.

So if he hired a legal, of age, prostitute then he's a hypocrite.
If he had sex outside of marriage he's a hypocrite there as well.

Abstinence only for the pub party on sex Ed? Link?

Didn't say rush's morals were anything exemplary but I sure wasn't going to make a giant leap to speculate he was screwing an underaged prostitute or was a homosexual because he had Viagra in his suitcase. That paltry evidence would indict many male travelers.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Abstinence only for the pub party on sex Ed? Link?

Didn't say rush's morals were anything exemplary but I sure wasn't going to make a giant leap to speculate he was screwing an underaged prostitute or was a homosexual because he had Viagra in his suitcase. That paltry evidence would indict many male travelers.He?'s calling the republican party the catholic church. Hey, THAT'S SMART, B'gosh! Way accurate! haha. Pore guy believing his foul balls were jonorones. He's in a better place, now.

[okie52]

It's just as imperative for the government to attempt to keep its citizens off of the welfare roles and into the middle class as it is keeping the government from being overwhelmed by a bunch of overimportant super wealthy oligarchs. It's never good for a country to have wealth distribution like we have right now. The oligarch class has rigged the game in their favor. I just want to un rig it. You're right to say we've had a little growth recently, but since '08 or so, the vast majority of the growth of wealth has been at the top of the food chain at the expense of those in the middle.

I have a hard time finding the system overwhelmingly rigged for the rich when the bottom 50% pay little or no federal income taxes. That's half of the country that's getting a pass.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I have a hard time finding the system overwhelmingly rigged for the rich when the bottom 50% pay little or no federal income taxes. That's half of the country that's getting a pass.Name of that game is to hate on anyone making more than you, regardless if he earned or not.

[yermom]

Abstinence only for the pub party on sex Ed? Link?


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/13/republican-rep-shift-funds-to-abstinence-only-because-sex-ed-is-dangerous/

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2008/09/01/4423693-palin-backed-abstinence-only-education?lite

i'd link something to Romney talking about it, but he flip flopped on it too many times

[yermom]

I have a hard time finding the system overwhelmingly rigged for the rich when the bottom 50% pay little or no federal income taxes. That's half of the country that's getting a pass.

because not paying taxes will get you out of poverty

just being poor is expensive

[okie52]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/13/republican-rep-shift-funds-to-abstinence-only-because-sex-ed-is-dangerous/

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2008/09/01/4423693-palin-backed-abstinence-only-education?lite

i'd link something to Romney talking about it, but he flip flopped on it too many times

I missed the part where that was part of the pub party platform...I guess I could point to hank Johnson to say all dems think Guam is going to capsize.

[okie52]

because not paying taxes will get you out of poverty

just being poor is expensive

Well not paying taxes sure isn't going to put you in poverty....but obviously somebody else is picking up your tab.

[yermom]

I missed the part where that Was part of he pub party platform...I guess I could point to hank Johnson to say all dems think Guam is going to capsize.

he won a bunch of primaries didn't he

[okie52]

he won a bunch of primaries didn't he

Who? (my ipad may not have picked up all of your link)

[MR2-Sooner86]

Abstinence only for the pub party on sex Ed? Link?

Didn't say rush's morals were anything exemplary but I sure wasn't going to make a giant leap to speculate he was screwing an underaged prostitute or was a homosexual because he had Viagra in his suitcase. That paltry evidence would indict many male travelers.

Funds for Abstinence Education
One such party position involves funding for abstinence education. Our outgoing president made increased funding for abstinence education a centerpiece of his campaign in 2000. During the Bush era funding nearly tripled, from $73 million per year in 2001 to $204 million per year in 2008.
The Republican party also took a similar position in 2008, a position that was certainly reinforced by the choice of Sarah Palin, an abstinence-only proponent for vice-president. (http://www.openeducation.net/2009/01/05/abstinence-only-sex-education-statistics-final-nail-in-the-coffin/)

GOP Rep: Shift Funds to Abstinence-Only Because Sex Ed Is 'Dangerous' (http://smd12364.newsvine.com/_news/2013/03/13/17300761-gop-rep-shift-funds-to-abstinence-only-because-sex-ed-is-dangerous)

Texas Republican Party Calls For Abstinence Only Sex Ed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/texas-republican-party-2012-platform-education_n_1632097.html)

Wisconsin Republicans Pass Abortion, Abstinence-Only Sex Education Bills (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/wisconsin-abortion-sex-education-bills-pass_n_1345873.html)

Abstinence-only sex ed bill passes Utah Senate (http://fox13now.com/2012/03/06/abstinance-only-sex-ed-bill-passes-utah-senate/)

Fun fact: Kids who receive abstinence only education are less likely to use birth control.

Congratulations adding to the welfare ranks Republicans!

[yermom]

Who? (my ipad may not have picked up all of your link)

who even knows that Guam guy, who had to have been kidding

vs. Romney and Palin who both came out for abstinence only education.

[Midtowner]

I have a hard time finding the system overwhelmingly rigged for the rich when the bottom 50% pay little or no federal income taxes. That's half of the country that's getting a pass.

Funny thing.. the rich control the vast majority of the country's wealth. I really don't see the trouble in finding that rigged system.

[C&CDean]

Funny thing.. the rich control the vast majority of the country's wealth. I really don't see the trouble in finding that rigged system.

Huh? I mean Huh?

[okie52]

Funds for Abstinence Education
One such party position involves funding for abstinence education. Our outgoing president made increased funding for abstinence education a centerpiece of his campaign in 2000. During the Bush era funding nearly tripled, from $73 million per year in 2001 to $204 million per year in 2008.
The Republican party also took a similar position in 2008, a position that was certainly reinforced by the choice of Sarah Palin, an abstinence-only proponent for vice-president. (http://www.openeducation.net/2009/01/05/abstinence-only-sex-education-statistics-final-nail-in-the-coffin/)

GOP Rep: Shift Funds to Abstinence-Only Because Sex Ed Is 'Dangerous' (http://smd12364.newsvine.com/_news/2013/03/13/17300761-gop-rep-shift-funds-to-abstinence-only-because-sex-ed-is-dangerous)

Texas Republican Party Calls For Abstinence Only Sex Ed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/texas-republican-party-2012-platform-education_n_1632097.html)

Wisconsin Republicans Pass Abortion, Abstinence-Only Sex Education Bills (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/wisconsin-abortion-sex-education-bills-pass_n_1345873.html)

Abstinence-only sex ed bill passes Utah Senate (http://fox13now.com/2012/03/06/abstinance-only-sex-ed-bill-passes-utah-senate/)

Fun fact: Kids who receive abstinence only education are less likely to use birth control.

Congratulations adding to the welfare ranks Republicans!

I still haven't seen a link where the pubs had abstinence only as part of their party platform or that it would be the only component of a sex Ed class. I would certainly hope any sex Ed class would teach abstinence is 100% effective against pregnancies and stds along with all the other components of a thorough sex education.

[okie52]

who even knows that Guam guy, who had to have been kidding

vs. Romney and Palin who both came out for abstinence only education.

The guy is a US rep and was overwhelmingly reelected after he made the statement. That link you provided was about some rep I never heard of from Illinois.

Romney touted only abstinence classes for sex education?

[okie52]

Funny thing.. the rich control the vast majority of the country's wealth. I really don't see the trouble in finding that rigged system.

Obviously the rich are going to control most of the country's wealth...they're rich. So how does that rig the system against the poor? If the poor paid absolutely no taxes of any kind...would that seem equitable to you?

[champions77]

Obviously the rich are going to control most of the country's wealth...they're rich. So how does that rig the system against the poor? If the poor paid absolutely no taxes of any kind...would that seem equitable to you?

Political Correctness will have none of it, but of all the reasons you hear of why some are poor, you never hear of the basic reason the poor are poor, they, themselves is the main reason. Instead of poverty pimps like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama as their role models, who want to blame society, rich people, the environment, neptune.... tune into someone who has made it from rags to riches, and see their receipe for success, they did so by working their tails off and making good choices along the way. Not by waiting for the next government check to arrive or blaming their plight on someone else.

[FaninAma]

Consistency huh? Following the constitution? The overuse of state power?

Let's go back to the NDAA that Rush was so fired up about.


http://youtu.be/D1yY3NCiMVQ


Romney said he would've signed what Obama signed. Where was Rush's outrage? Where were his calls to vote for anybody but Romney since he held the same views as Obama?

Romney was the establishment's choice so calling him another Obama, which he was, would've been counterproductive.

Double checkmate.

I think the last election was all about the appearance of giving the voters a choice. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference between Romney and Obama. The neocon wing of the GOP needs to just go away. I understand there is another Bush running in Texas for statewide office. If he manages to make it to the national stage I will no longer doubt the paranoid line of thought that there is a group of very powerful interests that decide who gets elected to office and who doesn't.

[yermom]

I think the last election was all about the appearance of giving the voters a choice. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference between Romney and Obama. The neocon wing of the GOP needs to just go away. I understand there is another Bush running in Texas for statewide office. If he manages to make it to the national stage I will no longer doubt the paranoid line of thought that there is a group of very powerful interests that decide who gets elected to office and who doesn't.

don't you mean every election?

[Midtowner]

Obviously the rich are going to control most of the country's wealth...they're rich. So how does that rig the system against the poor? If the poor paid absolutely no taxes of any kind...would that seem equitable to you?

The top 1% has been steadily increasing its share while everyone else has been squeezed. It's a rigged system. The rich pay a lower percentage of their income as taxes, have superior access to the courts to redress any wrongs against them, aren't subject to the same sort of criminal justice system as the poor, if they're in the financial sector of the economy, they can pretty much commit fraud with impunity, etc.

[FaninAma]

Those who support the GOP en toto need to explain how the pro-corporate welfare, necon wing of the party differs from the big government democrat progressives in DC.

[pphilfran]

The top 1% has been steadily increasing its share while everyone else has been squeezed. It's a rigged system. The rich pay a lower percentage of their income as taxes, have superior access to the courts to redress any wrongs against them, aren't subject to the same sort of criminal justice system as the poor, if they're in the financial sector of the economy, they can pretty much commit fraud with impunity, etc.
Mid, you are wanting to do the impossible...

Those on the bottom of the pay scale will never accumulate wealth...never....

Those on the upper end will always be able to save and add to their overall wealth....

Anything short of 100% taxation on the upper income folks will not stop the problem you wish to solve...might slow it down some but in 10 years you will still be crying the blues even with higher tax rates and steep inheritance taxes...

We must find ways to increase the competitiveness of the lower income people...allowing millions of illegals to work at sub standard wages (I know this is a sore spot for you) does not help the lower income people....higher energy costs does not help the lower income workers....

Whatever the case, higher taxes will not stop the problem so many are obsessed about....

[okie52]

The top 1% has been steadily increasing its share while everyone else has been squeezed. It's a rigged system. The rich pay a lower percentage of their income as taxes, have superior access to the courts to redress any wrongs against them, aren't subject to the same sort of criminal justice system as the poor, if they're in the financial sector of the economy, they can pretty much commit fraud with impunity, etc.

How can you pay less than 0%? Of course the rich can buy better lawyers...should we just make all lawyers available at a low flat rate so they can be afforded by rich and poor...wouldn't be very good for lawyers.

Enforce the laws where the rich are committing fraud. Hell, there's 11,000,000 poor illegals that have flaunted the law and now the "rigged" system is going to reward them.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

FaninAma, that's absurd. Look at what the Obama administration, and the democrats in congress before he became president are doing/have done...Then, you want to compare even the worst republicans to any of that, and somehow find the republican leadership, at its worst, anywhere near as bad and damaging to the country as what the democrats provide. If you can't find the better, less damaging avenue, it's on you. Sorry for you and all of us, really.

[champions77]

Those who support the GOP en toto need to explain how the pro-corporate welfare, necon wing of the party differs from the big government democrat progressives in DC.

Freedom in one and diminishing freedoms in the other? You will find very few conservatives that support any welfare, corporate, or otherwise. I would say the dems with the feds funding all the Green Energy companies, GM, Banks, etc believes in corporate welfare too.

[pphilfran]

FaninAma, that's absurd. Look at what the Obama administration, and the democrats in congress before he became president are doing/have done...Then, you want to compare even the worst republicans to any of that, and somehow find the republican leadership, at its worst, anywhere near as bad and damaging to the country as what the democrats provide. If you can't find the better, less damaging avenue, it's on you. Sorry for you and all of us, really.

Both sides have an affinity for stepping on their dicks....

[FaninAma]

Freedom in one and diminishing freedoms in the other? You will find very few conservatives that support any welfare, corporate, or otherwise. I would say the dems with the feds funding all the Green Energy companies, GM, Banks, etc believes in corporate welfare too.

Does TARP ring a bell? How about the $40 billion a month the FED is spending monthly to take the worst mortgage backed securities off of the books of the big banks? How about GE paying a pittance in federal taxes? What do you call the sugar industry getting a huge federal bailout now? How about the trillions crammed down a rat hole in Afghanistan and the Middle East? Vietnam ring a bell?(Foreign military actions are all about the money going to defense contractors)

Yes, the dems are complicit in all of these but so are Republicans.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

the Obears have presided over removing over 8 million jobs from the economy. Jobs that no longer exist. Obear is in process of destroying the coal industry as he promised to do. Ongoing assault on the 2nd amendment. We don't know how this will end. Refusal to let the Keystone Pipeline be completed, preventing countless jobs from being created, and putting upward pressure on the price of gas and oil. Refusal to allow drilling in many areas of public land that have proven reserves. Continuous downgrading of the military, one of the lawful government responsibilities, jeopardizing our military readiness and national defense. Sending military equipment purchased with American citizens' money, to hostile foreign governments. Refusing to pass a legally required budget in congress for several years running. It goes on, but perhaps the most grievous activity of all was the requiring of subprime mortgages by mortgage lenders with penalties for non-compliance. This was the STUPID-AS*ED fincncial atrocity that started the economic collapse. 8% unemployment, with what, 17% actual unemployment, considering all those who have quit looking for work.

In short, if you don't see what the democrats have done and will continue to do as activities that will destroy our country, then you are either one of them, or you aren't paying attention.

[champions77]

Does TARP ring a bell? How about the $40 billion a month the FED is spending monthly to take the worst mortgage backed securities off of the books of the big banks? How about GE paying a pittance in federal taxes? What do you call the sugar industry getting a huge federal bailout now? How about the trillions crammed down a rat hole in Afghanistan and the Middle East? Vietnam ring a bell?(Foreign military actions are all about the money going to defense contractors)

Yes, the dems are complicit in all of these but so are Republicans.

I never said they weren't culpable in most of that, you are the one that threw out the bit about asking for the difference in the GOP in Corporate welfare and the Dems in big government. Until the GOP quits acting like Democratic Lite and ends some of the crap you mention, then without much of a choice, I guess the voters will continue to elect the best speaker who makes the most promises and is backed by the media, regardless of his or her qualifications or the quality and depth of their ideas and solutions.

[FaninAma]

I never said they weren't culpable in most of that, you are the one that threw out the bit about asking for the difference in the GOP in Corporate welfare and the Dems in big government. Until the GOP quits acting like Democratic Lite and ends some of the crap you mention, then without much of a choice, I guess the voters will continue to elect the best speaker who makes the most promises and is backed by the media, regardless of his or her qualifications or the quality and depth of their ideas and solutions.

I probably should have addressed my response to RLIMC. I think the observation that the old guard of both parties are essentially big government statists is very accurate. Only the newer members of the libertarian-leaning wing of the GOP appear not to be. Hopefully the movement within the party will continue to gain traction. It has been nice to not have to hear from John McCain and Lindsey Graham since they were beyotch slapped by the conservative blogosphere for their comments about Rand Paul.

[champions77]

I probably should have addressed my response to RLIMC. I think the observation that the old guard of both parties are essentially big government statists is very accurate. Only the newer members of the libertarian-leaning wing of the GOP appear not to be. Hopefully the movement within the party will continue to gain traction. It has been nice to not have to hear from John McCain and Lindsey Graham since they were beyotch slapped by the conservative blogosphere for their comments about Rand Paul.

+1 Couldn't agree more. The one thing though that is really upsetting is the talking heads (mostly Dems along with the likes of Colin Powell) that portray the GOP as moving to the extreme radical right? How silly. The Party that has run moderates every election for President since Reagan, count them, Bush 41, Bob Dole, Bush 43, Mccain and last year Romney, all moderates, but we've moved to the far right? I wish we would. I don't see how a true conservative could do any worse than the aforementioned knuckleheads. Maybe the discussion needs to be how far left the Democratic Party has become. My gosh, Obama has an avowed communists ( Van Jones) as an advisor but the GOP are right wing radicals?

[Midtowner]

If the libertarian GOP wing would drop some of its conspiracy theory laden rhetoric, adopt a true libertarian, much more permissive immigration system and deep six any support for the religious right, they'd win a lot of friends fast. If one party was willing to talk about right-sizing the military and entitlement reform to help rehabilitate low wage earners rather than warehouse them, I'd be behind 'em 100%.

The trouble with the current libertarian wing is that they are a newly developed faction which doesn't really understand nuanced policy and that there are several things, e.g., a national healthcare system, which the federal government is actually better equipped to do than anyone else.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I probably should have addressed my response to RLIMC. I think the observation that the old guard of both parties are essentially big government statists is very accurate. Only the newer members of the libertarian-leaning wing of the GOP appear not to be. Hopefully the movement within the party will continue to gain traction. It has been nice to not have to hear from John McCain and Lindsey Graham since... their comments about Rand Paul.

McCain and Graham are fools, as you say. The only thing one can say about either that is positive is that they are good on some issues, some of the time. I'm all for the same guys you are for in the republican party, and we both recognize that there are some good people there, and the conservative people with guts are the ones we hope can make enough headway with the voters to defeat the democrats.(sad to say but yes, ALL the democrats) I just don't see why you and others seem to always go for condemning the republicans first and loudest, instead of the democrats, who MUST BE REMOVED from power, and the quicker the better, if we are to have any chance of prospering as a nation again.

[champions77]

If the libertarian GOP wing would drop some of its conspiracy theory laden rhetoric, adopt a true libertarian, much more permissive immigration system and deep six any support for the religious right, they'd win a lot of friends fast. If one party was willing to talk about right-sizing the military and entitlement reform to help rehabilitate low wage earners rather than warehouse them, I'd be behind 'em 100%.

The trouble with the current libertarian wing is that they are a newly developed faction which doesn't really understand nuanced policy and that there are several things, e.g., a national healthcare system, which the federal government is actually better equipped to do than anyone else.

"Much more permissive immigration system"? We provide them with in-state tuition at our colleges, provide them with a free education in our schools, provide government handouts, have cities that will not arrest them for being here illegally (Sanctuary cities) give them free access to our hospitals, allow them to protest in marches, complete with signs demanding their rights while they wave Mexican flags in our face, and you want this system to be more permissive? You will never be behind a Libertarian, ever. You want too much involvement of the federal government in not only your life, but for everyone else, to ever be considered a Libertarian. Do you think there is even one Libertarian that really wants Nationalized HealthCare?

[olevetonahill]

If the libertarian GOP wing would drop some of its conspiracy theory laden rhetoric, adopt a true libertarian, much more permissive immigration system and deep six any support for the religious right, they'd win a lot of friends fast. If one party was willing to talk about right-sizing the military and entitlement reform to help rehabilitate low wage earners rather than warehouse them, I'd be behind 'em 100%.

The trouble with the current libertarian wing is that they are a newly developed faction which doesn't really understand nuanced policy and that there are several things, e.g., a national healthcare system, which the federal government is actually better equipped to do than anyone else.

Seriously, WGAF who you would be behind?
If it were TRULY libertarian there would be NO gov. interference.
AS long as IM not pissing in your drinkin water leave me the **** alone.

[Midtowner]

Seriously, WGAF who you would be behind?
If it were TRULY libertarian there would be NO gov. interference.
AS long as IM not pissing in your drinkin water leave me the **** alone.

Apparently you do, as you respond to damn near every one of my posts.

[olevetonahill]

Apparently you do, as you respond to damn near every one of my posts.

Naw just seems that way, Cause I only respond to your really STUPID assed posts.:pirate:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

+1 Couldn't agree more. The one thing though that is really upsetting is the talking heads (mostly Dems along with the likes of Colin Powell) that portray the GOP as moving to the extreme radical right? How silly. The Party that has run moderates every election for President since Reagan, count them, Bush 41, Bob Dole, Bush 43, Mccain and last year Romney, all moderates, but we've moved to the far right? I wish we would. I don't see how a true conservative could do any worse than the aforementioned knuckleheads. Maybe the discussion needs to be how far left the Democratic Party has become. My gosh, Obama has an avowed communists ( Van Jones) as an advisor but the GOP are right wing radicals?Those who claim the republicans have moved too far right are the ones actually fearing that the republicans would ACTUALLY become more conservative, stand up for the laws, and gain more voters, enough to throw the libs out of office, and govern the country at least somewhat sanely.

[Midtowner]

Those who claim the republicans have moved too far right are the ones actually fearing that the republicans would ACTUALLY become more conservative, stand up for the laws, and gain more voters, enough to throw the libs out of office, and govern the country at least somewhat sanely.

More to the right and y'all are joining the tinfoil hat wearing Birchtards who just yesterday passed a bill in the Okie House to "stop" UN Agenda 21. On a national stage, it'd be a non-starter.

[SicEmBaylor]

More to the right and y'all are joining the tinfoil hat wearing Birchtards who just yesterday passed a bill in the Okie House to "stop" UN Agenda 21. On a national stage, it'd be a non-starter.

I was an associate member of the John Birch Society. I greatly enjoyed that organization. Their members are some of the most knowledgeable of constitutional issues and theory that I've ever encountered either inside or outside of academia. The only issue I ever had with them is their tendency to believe wild conspiracy theories.

Now, where you are wrong is in characterizing the John Birch Society as "far-right." They're actually more paleoconservative and very sympathetic to libertarian principles. They're anti-nationalists which puts them at odds with right-wing extremists and are skeptical of the military industrial complex and ceaseless wars that threaten our civil liberties here at home.

They have very little in common with the folks in the Oklahoma House that you're accusing of being "birchers." I don't blame you though -- you speak out of the ignorance of having zero first-hand knowledge of the John Birch Society and your natural left-wing inclination to accept anything you hear about any group that your kind considers to be or labels "far right."

[Midtowner]

True or false: UN Agenda 21 is threatening our sovereignty. That's a very famous JBS hotbutton issue and absent JBS teachings, this bit of silliness never gets out of committee.

What contact I've had with JBS members is that they are knowledgeable about their own opinions on what the Constitution means, particularly with regard to the 10th Amendment. Where they utterly fail is being remotely able to recite what the Constitution actually means or any sort of understanding about how, for example, we decide whether something falls within the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. Most JBSers would tell you that's a fantasy and they'd be wrong.

When asked about what current SCOTUS doctrine is, maybe a few are aware as to how we got to where we are now, but I haven't encountered one. I had a JBS client a few months ago and we had a lot of good talks. There's definitely a very tight and passionate group of folks.

And re: being Constitutionally astute, this is from the JBS Oklahoma website's front page:


By a vote of 7-3, the Oklahoma bill nullifying ObamaCare was passed by a committee.

The fight to force the federal beast back inside its constitutional cage is continuing in the Sooner State.

As anyone with an 8th grade civics education knows, the Oklahoma bill has no force of law whatsoever. ObamaCare has been blessed by the SCOTUS and the Oklahoma Legislature is now powerless to do anything but pass meaningless BS. Federalism 101. If they don't recognize this, the birchtard label fits.