TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The New Yorker cover of Obama
Pages (6): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »

quote:

Zero comprimise you say? The religious right controls the Republican Party. Tell me, who are the people least likely to comprimise? PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THEY ARE CARRYING OUT GOD'S MISSION! I'm sorry, but in today's government, it is the Republicans, most notably, the Bush Administration who refuse to comprimise. All my opinions of him come from myself and myself alone, so let's cut out the "media outlets" bullshit.

Yes... I say zero compromise. You didn't provide me with any examples otherwise to explain how the liberal left compromises in the political arena. All you did was turn the discussion to the Religious Right and say they don't compromise. Like I said before, if the liberal left is involved in "compromise", it's not them giving any ground... it's the people on the right having to make concessions in their direction. You're f-ing insane if you think nobody in the bush admin. has ever compromised. Bush himself was signed on to trying to pass that bullshit amnesty bill with kennedy et. al. last year!

And I'm sure your opinions come from yourself. But you gather your information from media outlets first before forming those opinions... and who are those media outlets? Anything funded by George Soros? The Huff Po? Daily Kos? Or do you genuinely and objectively listen to both sides and then form your own opinion based on all sources?

Edit: And yeah, I don't think you listen to Rush "all the time" because if you did, the LAST thing you would have said was that he is a staunch republican, damn the principals. Because that totally contradicts the truth, which I explained before, that he is hardcore in his conservative principals and doesn't give a fuck about party affiliation. Either you are lying or you're so blinded by your hatred for him that his message doesn't sink in when you listen.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis If you can't see whats wrong with him based on what was pointed out I can't help you.

I love when you say stuff like this. You do it all the time. If I can't see things the way YOU pointed them out, then I'm beyond help? Come on dude, that's pretty arrogant. I fully understand your point, but I can see no matter what Rush does for the rest of his life, it means nothing in your eyes. I already explained to you that I know what's wrong with him, and he willingly admits the mistakes he made and the reasons for doing them. He never claims to have the moral high ground or that he's better than anyone else; that's what critics accuse him of doing based on his daily discussions. Aside from his honesty on his past and problems, he donates millions of his own money to various charities when he doesn't have to... but he's just a partisan piece of shit out for his own personal gains?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I love when you say stuff like this. You do it all the time. If I can't see things the way YOU pointed them out, then I'm beyond help? Come on dude, that's pretty arrogant. I fully understand your point, but I can see no matter what Rush does for the rest of his life, it means nothing in your eyes. I already explained to you that I know what's wrong with him, and he willingly admits the mistakes he made and the reasons for doing them. He never claims to have the moral high ground or that he's better than anyone else; that's what critics accuse him of doing based on his daily discussions. Aside from his honesty on his past and problems, he donates millions of his own money to various charities when he doesn't have to... but he's just a partisan piece of shit out for his own personal gains?

Look, the hypocrisy he exudes is plainly pointed out in the articles I posted. The fact is he's still advocating hard-line policies for people doing illegal drugs, he still talks shit about folks who actually have served their country etc. He doesn't need to claim the moral high ground, he does so through what he preaches.

I appreciate his charity, but frankly its quite easy to give away a few million when you're making that much fucking money. It's not as if he's making huge sacrifices, he just bought a new 56 million dollar Gulfstream and owns a multitude of properties, as well as pretty much every luxury automobile you can buy.

You miss the point plain and simple. The fact that you're still bringing up his remorse for drug abuse shows that plainly. The first piece I posted explained that among several other things. I don't understand why I need to explain it further, its all laid out right there in writing.

Aside from all that, the fact that you're sitting here attempting to defend Rush Limbaugh and pretend he isn't all that bad shows us exactly where your opinions lie. He's terrible. Thats it. He's detrimental to this country, and he represents everything that is backwards and wrong with America. If this country were run according to his views we'd be like Iran.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss And, who doesn't play partisan politics? The democrats? There is ZERO compromise for deomcrats so don't give me that B.S. At least McCain is willing to cross the aisle... Compromise for liberal democrats entails people from the right making concessions in their direction... you'll never see any liberal democrat compromise, cross the aisle, or drift to the right.

You don't read the news much, do you? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, considering you appear to get your news from a partisan hack like Rush Limbaugh.

quote:

Republican Sen. Dick Lugar (IN) today said an Obama campaign ad which features him is "accurate." The ad makes the point the Obama previously "reached out" to Lugar to "help lock down loose nuclear weapons." Lugar is widely considered one of the most knowledgeable in the area of nuclear weapons proliferation and the coauthored of the 1991 Nunn-Lugar Act on cooperative threat reduction. "He did" reach out, Lugar said. He explained that in 2005, Obama asked if he could join Lugar on a trip to Russia and other countries to visit sites under the Nunn-Lugar program. "After that, we had legislation that we cosponsored together which passed" dealing with dangerous missiles. "So I am pleased we had that opportunity to work together," Lugar said. "I'm pleased we had the association Sen. Obama describes." But Lugar made clear up front that while the ad was accurate, and he's comfortable with the association, "There is no chance I will consider running with Barack Obama." The ad will run in more than a dozen states, including Lugar's home state of Indiana.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/arch...15/1200047.aspx

quote:

Hagel to Join Obama on Iraq Trip Susan Davis reports on the presidential race. The buzz this week that Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is planning to join Sen. Barack Obama on an up-coming visit to Iraq is correct, two sources with knowledge of the trip confirmed Friday. A spokesman for Sen. Obama declined to comment on any details or even confirm the date uncertain trip, citing security concerns. A spokesman for Sen. Hagel did not respond to requests for comment. While it is standard practice for such trips�known as CODELS, or congressional delegations�to be bipartisan, in this highly charged election year it is likely to raise eyebrows that the retiring Nebraskan senator�a prominent Iraq War critic�is the Republican expected to join the Democratic Party�s presidential nominee on what is sure to be a closely watched visit to the region. Adding to the intrigue is the fact that Sen. Hagel has not yet endorsed a candidate in the race, and he has offered kind words for both Obama and Republican rival Sen. John McCain, although the two Republicans differ greatly on the war. Hagel�s name has also been mentioned in the chatter over Obama�s running mate�he told the Associated Press in June that he would consider a vice presidential invitation, although he conceded such an offer is unlikely. Hagel has also been discussed as a speculative candidate for a Cabinet post if Obama is elected in November.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/...s&mod=sphere_wd

quote:

Columnist Green falsely stated Obama's "record shows a complete inability and disinterest in bipartisan cooperation" Summary: Chuck Green falsely asserted in a syndicated column that appeared in The Pueblo Chieftain and on The Aurora Sentinel's website that Sen. Barack Obama's record "shows a complete inability and disinterest in bipartisan cooperation." In fact, Obama has worked with Republicans on numerous legislative initiatives. Green also claimed that Obama has "failed to offer a specific plan" for U.S. immigration policy -- a claim contradicted by Obama's five-point immigration reform plan outlined on his campaign website. In a syndicated column published March 5 in The Pueblo Chieftain and online March 6 by The Aurora Sentinel, Chuck Green echoed other conservative commentators by falsely asserting that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's record "shows a complete inability and disinterest in bipartisan cooperation." Green also claimed that Obama "failed to offer a specific plan" to address what Green characterized as "the nation's ruinous immigration policy." In fact, Obama's record contains numerous instances in which he has undertaken legislative initiatives with Republican colleagues, and his campaign website contains a fact sheet detailing his five-point immigration reform plan. From Chuck Green's column, published online under the headline "A look into the future" on March 6 by The Aurora Sentinel and under the headline "Campaign styles give good clues about the future" on March 5 by The Pueblo Chieftain: To help determine what kind of a president a candidate might be, it could be instructive to look at what kind of campaigner he or she is. It might also be discouraging, particularly in the case of the two Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who are in the final dash for the party's nomination. [...] That leaves us with Obama. He might make a terrific vice president of marketing, but that's not the vacancy being filled. The nation is looking for a commander in chief, not a chief speech writer. What, specifically, has he accomplished that would demonstrate his ability to be the leader of the free world? Time after time, in interview after interview during the past couple of weeks, his supporters have been caught in spectacular moments of stunned silence when asked that crucial question. They have no answer. He promises "reaching across the aisle" to work with Republicans, yet his record shows a complete inability and disinterest in bipartisan cooperation. He promises a "compassionate" solution to the nation's ruinous immigration policy, yet failed to offer a specific plan for recovery. He has served up a scrumptious feast of new federal programs, but provides nothing more than an empty wallet and overextended credit card to pay the bill. When faced with his first tough question on the campaign trail -- "What about [Nation of Islam leader Louis] Farrakhan?" -- he stuttered and stammered and shifted his eyes like a 7-year-old asked to empty out his pockets by a suspicious storekeeper. Green's claim that Obama's "record shows a complete inability and disinterest in bipartisan cooperation" was similar to a statement by Karl Rove -- a former senior adviser to President Bush -- who wrote in a February 21 Wall Street Journal editorial that "Mr. Obama hasn't worked across party lines since coming to town." In fact, there are numerous examples of legislative initiatives in which Obama has worked directly with his GOP counterparts. They include: * An initiative jointly sponsored with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar (IN) that "enhances U.S. efforts to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles and to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction throughout the world." * The American Fuels Act of 2007, legislation jointly introduced with Lugar that "will use alternative fuel technologies to greatly decrease America's dependence on foreign oil." * The Alternative Diesel Standard Act of 2006, legislation authored with Republican Sen. Thad Cochran (MS) and jointly introduced with Cochran and Lugar "to require 2 billion gallons of alternative diesels -- including agriculture feedstocks such as biodiesel -- as part of the 40 billion gallon national diesel pool." * The Fuel Economy Reform Act, legislation jointly introduced with Republican Sens. Lugar, Gordon Smith (OR), Norm Coleman (MN), and Arlen Specter (PA) that "would reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by nearly half a trillion gallons by 2028 and greatly decrease our dependence on foreign oil." * The Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, legislation Obama introduced, and whose co-sponsors included Republican Sens. Christopher "Kit" Bond (MO), and Olympia Snowe (ME), to "cut red tape, improve facilities, and increase oversight at our nation's military hospitals." * The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, legislation from Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (OK) that Obama joined in introducing and passing to "create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans." Further, contrary to Green's claim that Obama has "failed to offer a specific plan for recovery" from "the nation's ruinous immigration policy," Obama's campaign website outlines a five-point immigration reform plan: Barack Obama's Plan Create Secure Borders Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry. Improve Our Immigration System Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill. Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. Bring People Out of the Shadows Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. Work with Mexico Obama believes we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration. A fact sheet linked on the same Web page as Obama's five-point plan provides more information about his proposal.

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200803070001

And for heaven's sake, don't just take Obama as an example - have some of the VP possibilities as well:

quote:

Bipartisan Iraq Reconstruction Provision Authored by Nelson, Bayh, Collins Included in Iraq Supplemental Markup Language Requires Iraq to Pay for Reconstruction and Training WASHINGTON, May 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Heralded as the first bipartisan effort to change our Iraq policy, a provision authored by Senators Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh and Susan Collins has come one step further to transferring financial responsibility for reconstruction and some operations costs from the U.S. taxpayer to the Iraqi Government. The provision was included in the Senate Appropriations Iraq War Supplemental markup today. "The blank check era for Iraq is coming closer and closer to its end," said Senator Nelson. "This language included in the supplemental requires Iraq to take more responsibility for its own reconstruction. With the United States and Iraq sharing the burden of the immense costs associated with rebuilding, the strain on the American taxpayer will be eased and Baghdad will have more of an investment in its future." "There is no reason why the Iraqis cannot bear more of the cost of securing, stabilizing and rebuilding their country," said Senator Collins. "No more American funds should be spent for major reconstruction projects. The costs of the salaries for the Sons of Iraq, for the training and equipping of the Iraqi security forces, and for other costs such as the fuel we use in Iraq should be borne by the Iraqis. It is really difficult for Americans who are struggling with the high cost of energy to pay these costs in a county that has the second-largest oil reserves and a burgeoning budget surplus."

http://www.reuters.com/article/pres...008+PRN20080516

quote:

Senator Evan Bayh's appearance today with Barack Obama at the "21st Century Threats" summit has stirred a lot of talk in the press about the possibility of him being on Obama's Veep short-list. But we're not sure that's such a viable idea. That's because in 2003, Bayh was an honorary co-chair of the neocon pro-war Committee for the Liberation of Iraq -- a group he joined along with none other than John McCain and Joe Lieberman, according to a press release from during the run-up to the invasion. Check this out, from the group's press release on February 14th, 2003 (via Nexis): The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) is pleased to welcome Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) as an Honorary Co-Chairman. Bayh becomes the third U.S. Senator to join the committee after Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced their participation on January 28.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpo...haired_wing.php

quote:

Biden, Lugar introduce legislation on tripling Pakistan aid PDF Print E-mail WASHINGTON, July 15 (APP): Introducing a major legislation on tripling U.S. economic assistance for Pakistan to $ 1.5 annually, Senators Joseph Biden and Richard Lugar on Tuesday said it would help transform �transactional� relationship between the two nations into a �deeper, broader, long-term strategic engagement.� The two top lawmakers introduced the legislation in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday morning, which enjoys bipartisan support on the Capitol Hill. �The U.S. wants to be all-weather friend of Pakistan,� Biden stated, assuring the Pakistani people that the legislation would help found long-term and broad-based ties between the two nations. Biden was confident that the Senate will pass the bill by end-August as it has backing on both sides of the aisle and expressed the hope that the House will also pass the measure shortly. �It�s the commitment that is more important,� he said about the Pakistani people�s concerns as he sought to allay fears that Washington would once again leave Pakistan in the lurch once it winds up from Afghanistan. The bill authorizes $ 7.5 billion over the next five fiscal years ($ 1.5 billion annually) in non-military aid and advocates an additional $ 7.5 billion over subsequent five years. However, it seeks to condition military assistance to certification by Secretary of State that the South Asian country is making concerted efforts to confront terrorism challenges in the country including on the Afghan border. �We�ve got to engage Pakistani people on issues they care about,� Biden said, expressing the confidence that Pakistan would serve as a bridge between the West and Islamic countries. The legislation called �landmark� by Senator Biden, who chairs the powerful Foreign Relations Committee, urges reorientation of engagement towards the Pakistani people rather than merely towards the Pakistani government and urges Secretary of State to develop a comprehensive strategy for the Afghan-Pakistan border area. Republican Senator Richard Lugar, addressing the Press Conference jointly with Biden, emphasized the legislation �recognizes that strengthening democracy and countering terrorism go hand in hand,� said a statement. Lugar said the bipartisan effort �reflects the realization that U.S relations with Pakistan should be broad-based and long-term.� �This legislation marks a first good step towards that,� he remarked, saying the measure calls for �an independent judiciary, greater accountability by the government, respect for human rights and civilian control of levers of power including the military and intelligence agencies.� Biden also called for bringing federally administered tribal areas into mainstream Pakistan through socio-economic development programs. Responding to a question, Senator Biden expressed the understanding that the new government is passing through a difficult transition period and said Washington should not make demands that creates problems for it. The new governments, Biden said, wants to control the tribal areas, adding it is facing many tough challenges. �We have to recognize that �this is a process,� adding that the U.S. has to pursue �a process of confidence� with Pakistan as counterterrorism cooperation is a �two-way street.�

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php...=45391&Itemid=2

quote:

Senator Lugar sponsored the Biden-Lugar Climate Change Resolution, S. Res. 30, on January 16, 2007. The bill expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should act to reduce risks posed by global climate change and to foster economic growth by: (1) participating in negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and leading efforts in other international fora with the objective of securing U.S. participation in agreements that advance and protect U.S. interests, that establish mitigation commitments by all countries that are major emitters of greenhouse gases, that establish flexible international mechanisms to minimize the cost of efforts by participating countries, and that achieve a significant long-term reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions; and (2) establishing a bipartisan Senate observer group to monitor international negotiations on climate change and to ensure that the advice and consent function of the Senate is exercised to facilitate timely consideration of any applicable treaty.

http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/legislation/index.cfm#30

quote:

In November 1991, Senator Lugar (R-IN) and former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) authored the Nunn-Lugar Act, which established the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. This program has provided U.S. funding and expertise to help the former Soviet Union safeguard and dismantle its enormous stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, related materials, and delivery systems. On January 30, 2008, Senator Lugar delivered a speech at a Defense Threat Reduction Agency conference, saying arms control has suffered significant setbacks. An excerpt from the speech follows: "The United States lacks even minimal confidence about many foreign weapons programs. In most cases, there is little or no information regarding the number of weapons or amounts of materials a country may have produced, the storage procedures they employ to safeguard their weapons, or plans regarding further production or destruction programs. We must pay much more attention to making certain that all weapons and materials of mass destruction are identified, continuously guarded, and systematically destroyed."

http://lugar.senate.gov/nunnlugar/index.cfm

Need I go into Joe Lieberman?

Anyway, that's the legislation that comes to mind immediately when thinking of topics in which Dems reached across the aisle to a GOP member or more.

So you stick with Rush Limbaugh, and I'll stick with facts.
Now let's play a little game. Name an issue other than campaign finance reform that McCain has reached across the aisle on... after all, he's the maverick, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Name an issue other than campaign finance reform that McCain has reached across the aisle on... after all, he's the maverick, right?

earmarks of course.

as an Indian affairs leader passed Indian Economic Development Act of 1985. helped write the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 1988 with Daniel Inouye and Mo Udall.

Gramm-Rudman act. (although just about everybody was for balanced budgets back then)

McCain-Fiengold campaign finance reform. (yuck)

he was one of the infamous leaders of the "Gang of 14" in 2005 to negotiate Federal bench appointees and avoid fillibuster. (double yuck)

Line Item Veto Act of 1996 (which was struck down by the SCOTUS a year later)

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (he was one of only 4 Republican Senators to vote against)

the only Republican Senator to vote against the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996.

McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (defeated in 2004 by a margin of 43-55)

Detainee Treatment Act 2005.

according to Almanac of American Politics (and wikipedia) McCain's Foreign Policy rating in 2006 was 58% conservative, 40% liberal in 2006 and was 54% conservative, 45% liberal in 2005.

his Economic Policy rating for the same years was 64% conservative, 35% liberal and 52% conservative, 47% liberal respectively.

he voted for Ruth Ginsburg ffs

right now he's co-sponsor of a Senate cap-and-trade bill designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions. (i don't think many Republicans can even verbalize "cap and trade" without vomitting a little)

the man has commanded respect from both sides of the aisle for decades. he's also pissed some peoeple off during that time as well.

Thank you Q5... you did my research for me on that.

LEBEZNIATNIKOV: I'm not about to read your term paper you just posted. I can shorten it for you easy---> "Rush is pure evil and has no business opening his mouth." I read PLENTY of news bro... from all different types of media. Rush isn't my source of news. I enjoy his show and he presents a differents angles to lots of views. It's hilarious you call him a partisan hack when your lord and savior King Obama has never once attempted to work on any legislation with a republican.

CLOVIS: ALright you got my fired up about something here. Rush absolutely does not talk shit about the people who serve this country. If you truly listen to him like you say, you would know that he made a comment about phony soldiers serving in Iraq in reference to Jesse McBeth and other like him who claim to be soldiers, but really aren't. McBeth never even finished basic training, was never in Iraq, and never an army ranger as he claimed but he told media outlets he committed war crimes while in Iraq. Media Matters started that whole line of shit out of context (Soros funded group) saying he was calling soldiers who opposed the war as "phony"... McBeth was later busted and found guilty in court for his lies. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one account, translated into Arabic and spread across the Internet, MacBeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque." The people in the military fucking love Rush. We could go on all day about the other shit, but this point you make about Rush insulting the military is totally wrong, and it drives me insane when people believe this story.

At least read this with an open mind, from the source, instead of from a left wing media outlet:

quote:

The morning update on Wednesday dealt with a soldier, a fake, phony soldier by the name of Jesse MacBeth who never served in Iraq; he was never an Army Ranger. He was drummed out of the military in 44 days. He had his day in court; he never got the Purple Heart as he claimed, and he described all these war atrocities. He became a hero to the anti-war left. They love phony soldiers, and they prop 'em up. When it is demonstrated that they have been lying about things, then they just forget about it. There's no retraction; there's no apology; there's no, "Uh-oh, sorry." After doing that morning update on Wednesday, I got a phone call yesterday from somebody, we were talking about the troops, and this gentleman said something which you'll hear here in just a second, prompting me to reply "yeah, the phony soldiers." That comment, "phony soldiers" was posted yesterday afternoon on the famous Media Matters website, which is where all leftists go to find out what I say. I have a website, and I have a radio program that reaches far more people than Media Matters could ever hope to, but the critics of this program never listen to this program. They never go to my website. All they do is read Media Matters and they get the lies and the out-of-context reports. They assume it's all true because they want it to be true, and then they start their campaigns. This has led to me being denounced on the floor of the House. Howard Dean has released a statement demanding I apologize; Jim Webb; John Kerry issued a statement, three Congress people went out on the floor of the House last night and said some things, and it's starting to blossom now in the Drive-By Media. So this is the anatomy of a smear, and this is how it starts. Actual words from the phone conversation: RUSH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people. CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media. RUSH: The phony soldiers. CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country. RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq. RUSH: It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Thank you Q5... you did my research for me on that. LEBEZNIATNIKOV: I'm not about to read your term paper you just posted. I can shorten it for you easy---> "Rush is pure evil and has no business opening his mouth." I read PLENTY of news bro... from all different types of media. Rush isn't my source of news. I enjoy his show and he presents a differents angles to lots of views. It's hilarious you call him a partisan hack when your lord and savior King Obama has never once attempted to work on any legislation with a republican.

Ok, without reading what I posted, you just look silly and naive. Also, it is still clear that you don't watch or read any real news.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Ok, without reading what I posted, you just look silly and naive. Also, it is still clear that you don't watch or read any real news.

I look silly and naive? I already know what your post is about without having to read it word for word. I skimmed it a little, but basically I know your position, and that you're just trying to further back it up. So, one could say I'm more efficient with my time, and not so much naive.

And, what do you consider "real" news that I don't watch? I watch it all man... CNN, MSNBC, FOX, the networks affiliates, and I read a little bit of everything: MSNBC, HuffPo, NYT, LGF, Politico, Rush's website, Michelle Malkin, WSJ.... the list goes on. In your mind, I can't possibly watch any real news if I think like I do and don't share your views. Because if I watched what you consider real, then I'd definitely be on the right track, right? Watching and reading mainstream news only contributes to my conservative views actually... there's a reason they all suck in viewership ratings and are losing truck loads of advertising revenue, and why the "journalist" profession is the least respected and trusted one in America right now, along with used car salesman.

Anyway I know this isn't going to go anywhere so this is the point where I just have to say "whatever dude" on this topic. I'll catch up with you on another one soon I'm sure.

Hey hey journalists are dumber than used car salesmen.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Yes... I say zero compromise. You didn't provide me with any examples otherwise to explain how the liberal left compromises in the political arena. All you did was turn the discussion to the Religious Right and say they don't compromise. Like I said before, if the liberal left is involved in "compromise", it's not them giving any ground... it's the people on the right having to make concessions in their direction. You're f-ing insane if you think nobody in the bush admin. has ever compromised. Bush himself was signed on to trying to pass that bullshit amnesty bill with kennedy et. al. last year!

Examples? Where are yours for uncomprimising Democrats (while they were in control of Congress)? I am cautious about giving you examples, as I watched you just blow over lebez's comprehensive examples. But if you want something further than the Religious Right's uncomprimising politics, here goes...

Under the Republican dominated Congress (1995-2006)...

1. Extreme Centralization

The legislative agenda of the House is (and always has been) controlled by the Speaker and the Committee on Rules. Robert Kuttner explained that, unlike their Democratic predecessors, TOm Delay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (whose chief of staff, Scott Palmer, he considered "as powerful as Delay") practically write laws themselves. "Drastic revisions to bills approved by committee are characteristically added by the leadership, often late in the evening," Kuttner observed. "Under the House rules, 48 hours are supposed to elapse before floor action. But in 2003, the leadership, 57 percent of the time, wrote rules declaring bills to be 'emergency' measures, allowing them to be considered with as little as '30 minutes' notice. On several measures, members literally did not know what they were voting for."

2. No Amendments

When the GOP took control of the House they promised they would do better than Democrats, assuring all "that at least 70 percent of bills would come to the floor with rules permitting amendments." That did not happen; in fact, the opposite occurred. The "proportion of bills prohibiting amendments has steadily increased," from 56 percent the first year Republicans took control to 76 percent when Kuttner last examined them. Even these numbers understate the situation, Kuttner explained, since "all major bills now come to the floor with rules prohibiting amendments."

3. ONE-PARTY CONFERENCES

The Republican-controlled Senate has not yet stopped floor amendments, so when a Senate bill differs from a House bill, members are appointed by each body to confer and resolve the differences. Republicans, however, have cut both House and Senate Democrats out of the conferences. THe Republicans meet, work out any differences, and then send a non-amendable bill back to each body for a quick up-or-down vote. Kuttner noted that members may be given a day to study bills exceeding a thousand pages, with "much of it written from scratch in conference." This is a practice that was once considered unacceptable by both parties.

4. No Legislative Hearings

Obviously, when laws are written in conference meetings, they have no been discusses during hearings. Even when hearings are held at the committee level, however, Republicans frequently write laws without any input from Democrats, and they vote down any Democratic efforts to amend legislation in committee. Unde Republicans, many laws are literally written by the special interests the laws seek to "regulate", an extraordinary outsourcing of the legislative process.

5. Appropriations Bill Abuses

If annual appropriations bills are not enacted, the government runs out of money and must close down. When Newt Gingrich shut down the government in 1995, pressuring President Clinton in a game of political chicken that Gingrich lose, lawmakers were notified that the public would not tolerate such games. Appropriations bills must pass - a president must not veto legislation, regardless of what objectionable provisions it might contain. Accordingly, Republicans add to these bills an endless array of spending for pet pork-berral projects. As one commentator noted, Republicans are spending "worse than drunken sailors". Under the GOP congressional leadership, "earmarked" (meaning pork) spending has soared. According to the Wall Street Journal, at the end of 2005 there were a staggering 13,998 earmarked expenses, costing $27.3 billion. When the Republicans took control in 1995 there were only 1,439 earmarked items. Needless to say, there is nothing conservative in these fiscal actions but there is much that is authoritarian about the wanton spending of these Republicans.

quote:

And I'm sure your opinions come from yourself. But you gather your information from media outlets first before forming those opinions... and who are those media outlets? Anything funded by George Soros? The Huff Po? Daily Kos? Or do you genuinely and objectively listen to both sides and then form your own opinion based on all sources?

How do you know where I gather my information? How about this... Address the points I make, and lay off the really sad attempts to attack my credibility. First, you you tried to say I never listen Rush Limbaugh, now you try to imply I get my information of all liberal sources. All of this is irrelavent to my argument. So here is a bit of advice, repeated. Address my arguments ONLY, or lose the argument.

quote:

Edit: And yeah, I don't think you listen to Rush "all the time" because if you did, the LAST thing you would have said was that he is a staunch republican, damn the principals. Because that totally contradicts the truth, which I explained before, that he is hardcore in his conservative principals and doesn't give a fuck about party affiliation.

Are you kidding me? He makes his living off of partisan politics! Please explain to me the disconnect between Republicanism and so-called "conservative principles". They are one in the same.

quote:

Either you are lying or you're so blinded by your hatred for him that his message doesn't sink in when you listen.

STRAW MAN ARGUMENT. I am neither lying or filled with any hatred of Mr. Limbaugh. I hate his POLITICAL VIEWS. So don't misrepresent my statements. I am diametrically opposed to Mr. Limbaugh in every respect (except some economic principles), as are almost 2 people for every 1 person who agrees with Rush Limbaugh (according to a Rasmussen poll). Most of America disagrees with Mr. Limbaugh. So me, "not letting his message sink in", demonstrates I'de rather think for myself, rather than let a right-wing radio pundit tell me what to think...

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Thank you Q5... you did my research for me on that. LEBEZNIATNIKOV: I'm not about to read your term paper you just posted. I can shorten it for you easy---> "Rush is pure evil and has no business opening his mouth." I read PLENTY of news bro... from all different types of media. Rush isn't my source of news. I enjoy his show and he presents a differents angles to lots of views. It's hilarious you call him a partisan hack when your lord and savior King Obama has never once attempted to work on any legislation with a republican. CLOVIS: ALright you got my fired up about something here. Rush absolutely does not talk shit about the people who serve this country. If you truly listen to him like you say, you would know that he made a comment about phony soldiers serving in Iraq in reference to Jesse McBeth and other like him who claim to be soldiers, but really aren't. McBeth never even finished basic training, was never in Iraq, and never an army ranger as he claimed but he told media outlets he committed war crimes while in Iraq. Media Matters started that whole line of shit out of context (Soros funded group) saying he was calling soldiers who opposed the war as "phony"... McBeth was later busted and found guilty in court for his lies. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one account, translated into Arabic and spread across the Internet, MacBeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque." The people in the military fucking love Rush. We could go on all day about the other shit, but this point you make about Rush insulting the military is totally wrong, and it drives me insane when people believe this story. At least read this with an open mind, from the source, instead of from a left wing media outlet:

You fucking generalize more than anyone I have ever seen, but then again so does Rush.

As if there are only two kinds of soldiers in the military. Fake ones, like McBeth, and the rest all absolutely love Iraq and the sacrifices they are making. That is complete and utter fucking bollocks. They found 1 guy who lied about his service and use that as an excuse to discount any and all other dissenting views held by people in the military. The military doesn't fucking love rush. Certain people in the military do. What additional context is required for that? The caller referred to soldiers that pop up out of the blue and spout of to the media, and Rush called them phony soldiers, which directly infers that any soldier talking negatively about the war to the media is a phony. You're splitting hairs if you think he meant otherwise.

In the original article I posted, Rush said:
"We do not need General Clark or any of the rest of you liberals. We don�t need to change the definition of patriotism in order to conform to the antiwar, hate-America-first radicalism of the Democrat leadership. And that�s what this is all about.�

That is questioning the patriotism and love of America of someone who actually FOUGHT for his country. Apparently Rush loves America but not enough to overcome a persistent boil on his backside and fight in a war.


You eat up his propaganda, it's amazing. I don't read media matters, or get any of my news from those types of outlets. I can see the hipocrisy and idiocy Rush displays from hearing his own words.


Finally, once again, everything is laid out in that original article, specifically here:

quote:

Limbaugh is a prime example of what is known as a Chicken Hawk�a noisy, preening master of the martial art of talking who, back when it was a question of getting anywhere near harm�s way for the sake of his country, discovered that he had (as Vice-President Cheney once put it, explaining his own absence from the fray) �other priorities.� He has now joined another �lite corps�the Vice Versa Virtuecrats, they might be called�whose members crusade against �moral relativism� and in favor of absolute standards of right and wrong backed up by draconian punishments while indulging themselves in devilment on the side. Like Newt Gingrich, who vowed to attack Bill Clinton in every speech for hiding his sad little dalliance with Monica Lewinsky while he himself was carrying on a years-long affair with a congressional staffer young enough to be his daughter, and William J. Bennett, who made millions promoting flinty self-discipline while gambling away comparable amounts in Las Vegas fleshpots, Limbaugh took a stern line on demon dope (�If people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up�) while himself possessing and consuming controlled substances in prodigious quantities. In Limbaugh�s case, the difficulty goes beyond an embarrassing inconsistency between professed beliefs and private behavior, because the �problem� he has acknowledged having�being �addicted to prescription pain medication��correlates strongly with committing acts that the law defines as crimes.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I look silly and naive? I already know what your post is about without having to read it word for word. I skimmed it a little, but basically I know your position, and that you're just trying to further back it up. So, one could say I'm more efficient with my time, and not so much naive.

lol, dude. How about you go back and read it and see if you really knew what I was saying without reading it after all.

quote:

Because if I watched what you consider real, then I'd definitely be on the right track, right?

No, but you'd have an idea of what is actually going on in the world instead of just parroting spin-meisters. Democrats have never joined a Republican on legislation? You have to have your head in the sand to believe that - or maybe you just get your news from sources like Rush Limbaugh, like I said.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I look silly and naive? I already know what your post is about without having to read it word for word. I skimmed it a little, but basically I know your position, and that you're just trying to further back it up. So, one could say I'm more efficient with my time, and not so much naive.

That is the fucking height of ignorance. If we can't debate things here because you don't like reading anything longer than a paragraph, we're all wasting our time with you and you are wasting everyone else's time. He presented hard evidence that basically completely rebuked your position, but it doesn't matter because it was a term paper? You've been to college, I hope your term papers were longer than a forum post.

More efficient with your time because you don't have the patience to read something that long? America gets stupider day by day because of precisely this attitude...


Also, yes we can call Rush Limbaugh a partisan hack, because by all EDUCATED accounts he is exactly that. Not to mention he doesn't serve his country in any way, shape or form.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis You fucking generalize more than anyone I have ever seen, but then again so does Rush. As if there are only two kinds of soldiers in the military. Fake ones, like McBeth, and the rest all absolutely love Iraq and the sacrifices they are making. That is complete and utter fucking bollocks. They found 1 guy who lied about his service and use that as an excuse to discount any and all other dissenting views held by people in the military. The military doesn't fucking love rush. Certain people in the military do. What additional context is required for that? The caller referred to soldiers that pop up out of the blue and spout of to the media, and Rush called them phony soldiers, which directly infers that any soldier talking negatively about the war to the media is a phony. You're splitting hairs if you think he meant otherwise. You eat up his propaganda, it's amazing. I don't read media matters, or get any of my news from those types of outlets. I can see the hipocrisy and idiocy Rush displays from hearing his own words.

The hair splitting is not happening on my end. Eat up is propoganda? lol that's rich. What he said does not directly infer that any soldier talking negatively about the war is a phony in his eyes. That's exactly who he was fucking talking about. To infer anything else is to take that out of context. That is the disconnect; he was not speaking in generalities, he was specifically talking about Jesse McBeth and people like him WHO ARE PHONY that pop out of nowhere... what's to infer? Media Matters who ran with the story are the ones who put it into generalities. When the caller referred to soldeirs who pop out of the blue and spout to the media, it was also in the context of Jesse McBeth, as both he and Rush were on the same page about what they were talking about. Why can't he clarify the whole thing with his words and be believed? You and others who dislike him or don't agree with him refuse to believe he could possibly speak the truth, so you say that you know and can explain his words better than him. That just doesn't make much sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis That is the fucking height of ignorance. If we can't debate things here because you don't like reading anything longer than a paragraph, we're all wasting our time with you and you are wasting everyone else's time. He presented hard evidence that basically completely rebuked your position, but it doesn't matter because it was a term paper? You've been to college, I hope your term papers were longer than a forum post. More efficient with your time because you don't have the patience to read something that long? America gets stupider day by day because of precisely this attitude...

The height of ignorance? It's the height of me realizing when a dead horse is getting the fuck beaten out of it, and it all becomes the same bullshit in different forms... so my desire to read it goes away when I know what it's going to be about, when I know he will not change my views, and I know I won't change his. It's not like I have ADD and can't sit down and read something; the lack of patience comes when I know it's going nowhere. I keep it up with you because you're replies are more interesting than redundant. If his "hard evidence" was objective, I'd take the time... trust me. ANd I hope you know I was using the phrase "term paper" as a figure of speech, not an actual comparison.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Democrats have never joined a Republican on legislation? You have to have your head in the sand to believe that - or maybe you just get your news from sources like Rush Limbaugh, like I said.

When did I say "Democrats have never joined a republican on legislation?" Jesus Christ! I said your lord and savior Obama has never done such, while you were referring to Rush as a partisan hack. And it's true... he hasn't. I also said the liberal left does not compromise with republicans, which they don't. The liberal left is not "all democrats." Fucking A. Then, what... was it you or Krypton, I can't remember, who challenged McCain on the same issue to come up with examples other than campaign finance reform, and that was done (Q5echo beat me to the punch), and you of course totally disregard that. But like I said before, things have obviously run their course between us on this issue so lets stop talking about it, shall we?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Examples? Where are yours for uncomprimising Democrats (while they were in control of Congress)? I am cautious about giving you examples, as I watched you just blow over lebez's comprehensive examples. But if you want something further than the Religious Right's uncomprimising politics, here goes... How do you know where I gather my information? How about this... Address the points I make, and lay off the really sad attempts to attack my credibility. First, you you tried to say I never listen Rush Limbaugh, now you try to imply I get my information of all liberal sources. All of this is irrelavent to my argument. So here is a bit of advice, repeated. Address my arguments ONLY, or lose the argument. Please explain to me the disconnect between Republicanism and so-called "conservative principles". They are one in the same. STRAW MAN ARGUMENT. I am neither lying or filled with any hatred of Mr. Limbaugh. I hate his POLITICAL VIEWS. So don't misrepresent my statements. I am diametrically opposed to Mr. Limbaugh in every respect (except some economic principles), as are almost 2 people for every 1 person who agrees with Rush Limbaugh (according to a Rasmussen poll). Most of America disagrees with Mr. Limbaugh. So me, "not letting his message sink in", demonstrates I'de rather think for myself, rather than let a right-wing radio pundit tell me what to think...

Ugh.. where to begin. Well if you don't get your information from liberal sources, where do you get them? I really want to know. Funny you telling me to address your arguments only, or lose the argument... you still won't give me any examples of when the liberal left made any compromise on anything with republicans while you spout off about republican partisanship. Weren't examples given yesterday about all the fucking times McCain signed on to legislation with deomcrats (McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Fiengold, McCain-Leiberman....etc)?

Truly, you are not informed if you believe Conservatism is synonomous with Republicanism. I mean, that's so black and white. Maybe when Regan was president, but now? Hell now. The republican party is in trouble because they are abondoning their formerly traditional conservative principals and standing for nothing. They are running as a political party and not an idelogical movement like in the 80s. Conservatism is about individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, and national security. Conservatives support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at the core, they embrace the Constitution. The republicans in office today don't fit that mold at all.

The new face of republicanism is a lot different. The repiublican congress was put into a position of having to endorse the Bush admin. policies that did not coincide with being conservative, and in the end they lost because of it. Conservatives do not grow the government and offer entitlements as a means of buying votes. But that�s what the republicans in congress had to support in order to stay in line with the party from the top. Now the party is watered down and there is no leadership.

And what can you say about the current democratic congress anyway? You mentioned something in your first line about them. They have half the approval rating of Bush (the lowest rating in the history of congress), and have not passed a single thing worth a shit since being in office for a year and a half. Pelosi and Harry Ried promised the first day, when oil was $2.33 a gallon, that they would pass legislation asap to give people relief at the pump. Now they are still doing everything they can to resist access to this and do anything while 80% of the public wants to get at our own energy. They are fucking worthless

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Ugh.. where to begin. Well if you don't get your information from liberal sources, where do you get them? I really want to know. Funny you telling me to address your arguments only, or lose the argument... you still won't give me any examples of when the liberal left made any compromise on anything with republicans while you spout off about republican partisanship. Weren't examples given yesterday about all the fucking times McCain signed on to legislation with deomcrats (McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Fiengold, McCain-Leiberman....etc)?

I get my news from all the major news outlets, but NPR, and PBS are my number favorites, for their dedication to objective news reporting. I like McCain, but guess what? Hardline Republicans hate HATE him, because he is a comprimiser. And I find it funny you say Democrats don't comprimise, but here you say examples given yesterday of McCain doing what? COMPRIMISING WITH DEMOCRATS. You contridict yourself. Do Democrats comprimise or do they not comprimise? Additionally, how do Democrats comprimise with a Republican controlled Congress in which the top party brass effectly runs the place as if its a one-party government. This is why I provided examples of Republican abuses of power.

quote:

Truly, you are not informed if you believe Conservatism is synonomous with Republicanism. I mean, that's so black and white. Maybe when Regan was president, but now? Hell now. The republican party is in trouble because they are abondoning their formerly traditional conservative principals and standing for nothing. They are running as a political party and not an idelogical movement like in the 80s. Conservatism is about individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, and national security. Conservatives support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at the core, they embrace the Constitution. The republicans in office today don't fit that mold at all. The new face of republicanism is a lot different. The repiublican congress was put into a position of having to endorse the Bush admin. policies that did not coincide with being conservative, and in the end they lost because of it. Conservatives do not grow the government and offer entitlements as a means of buying votes. But that�s what the republicans in congress had to support in order to stay in line with the party from the top. Now the party is watered down and there is no leadership.

I don't think you understood me. I used the phrase "so-called conservatism" which is to say Republicanism is not tradition conservativism per se, but CLAIMS to be conservative. I completely agree on your assessment of the Republican decline from TRUE conservatism. This is why I am so disenfranchised with the party. I am actually a registered Republican, but they have so much fallen off the path of what conservatism truly stands for, I want the Democrats to take over while the Republicans figure out what went wrong. The government has shifted way too far to the right, and I view the Democrats as the logical force to bring back equilibrium to the government.

quote:

And what can you say about the current democratic congress anyway? You mentioned something in your first line about them. They have half the approval rating of Bush (the lowest rating in the history of congress), and have not passed a single thing worth a shit since being in office for a year and a half. Pelosi and Harry Ried promised the first day, when oil was $2.33 a gallon, that they would pass legislation asap to give people relief at the pump. Now they are still doing everything they can to resist access to this and do anything while 80% of the public wants to get at our own energy. They are fucking worthless

What can I say about them? They are right in standing up to the Bush Administration's flagrant abuses of power.

Guess why the Democrat Congress's approval rating is lower than Bush's, even in the eyes of Democrats themselves. It's because they did not end the Iraq War like they promised.

Additionally, Democrats hold a higher approval rating in Congress and the presidential elections than the Republicans, according to Rasmussen polling. Presidential Poll (Very Close) & Generic Congressional Ballot (Not Close)

Also, how are you going to blame the Democratic leadership for such high oil prices? Do you know that high oil prices are happening ALL OVER THE WORLD? It is something far beyond their control. I would also say the Democrats are far more open to alternative energies than the Republicans, while some Republicans do favor alternative energies, a lot of (R's) have lobbying interests in the oil industry. And if we are to curtail the runaway temperature rise, why would any sane person want to release BILLIONS OF TONS more carbon gas? It is a temporary solution. What are we going to do when the new oil dries up, and global temperatures are at record levels? High oil prices should be incentive to invest in alternative energies, and contruct our society in a way in which cars are not needed to go everywhere. Europe's public transit system should be example enough for us. And they've been living with high oil prices for years, although self-imposed, but still it convinced city planners to construct easily walkable cities.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I like McCain, but guess what? Hardline Republicans hate HATE him, because he is a comprimiser. And I find it funny you say Democrats don't comprimise, but here you say examples given yesterday of McCain doing what? COMPRIMISING WITH DEMOCRATS. You contridict yourself. Do Democrats comprimise or do they not comprimise? Additionally, how do Democrats comprimise with a Republican controlled Congress in which the top party brass effectly runs the place as if its a one-party government. This is why I provided examples of Republican abuses of power. What can I say about them? They are right in standing up to the Bush Administration's flagrant abuses of power. Guess why the Democrat Congress's approval rating is lower than Bush's, even in the eyes of Democrats themselves. It's because they did not end the Iraq War like they promised. Additionally, Democrats hold a higher approval rating in Congress and the presidential elections than the Republicans, according to Rasmussen polling. Presidential Poll (Very Close) & Generic Congressional Ballot (Not Close) Also, how are you going to blame the Democratic leadership for such high oil prices? Do you know that high oil prices are happening ALL OVER THE WORLD? It is something far beyond their control. I would also say the Democrats are far more open to alternative energies than the Republicans, while some Republicans do favor alternative energies, a lot of (R's) have lobbying interests in the oil industry. And if we are to curtail the runaway temperature rise, why would any sane person want to release BILLIONS OF TONS more carbon gas? It is a temporary solution. What are we going to do when the new oil dries up, and global temperatures are at record levels? High oil prices should be incentive to invest in alternative energies, and contruct our society in a way in which cars are not needed to go everywhere. Europe's public transit system should be example enough for us. And they've been living with high oil prices for years, although self-imposed, but still it convinced city planners to construct easily walkable cities.

Dude I'm with you on the republican abuses of power... I totally agree and this is why, like you, i am sickened by the direction that the GOP has gone. I can't stand McCain either, and I hate to have to think about voting in an election where I have to say, "ok which one is the lesser of 2 evils?" Come to think of it, I can't remember the last time I was excited about a presidential candidate. But anyway, I don't like McCain either. But the point is, HE was compromising... in their direction. They were getting the good end of that deal. I wouldn't say it was democrats compromising at all... they were pulling a (so called) republican over to their side to sign on to their type of legislation. When I see Barbara Boxer latching on to an energy bill drafted by Mitch McConnell, I'll believe in 2 way compromise.

I think it's pretty simple about Congress being at fault actually. Besides the fact they promised they would do something to ease costs 18 months ago and haven't, they are the ones preventing us from being able to increase our own supply. I was in Malaysia last month and gas was cheap as fuck there. The new oil isn't going to dry up. Between the OCS, what we know we have here under ground, and the oil shale, we have 3x the reserves as the middle east. The new technology we have to get that oil can have us pumping it in boatloads in 2 years, not the previously hearalded 7 to 10 that the Dems say. We have plenty of supply, but congress blocks every opportunity to get at it. The execuative OCS moratorium has been lifted to drill now (which shot oil prices down $18 per barrel instantly), and Congress is the only thing standing in the way of allowing access to our own supply. There is no substitute for oil and there won't be any time soon... even Obama's new "fast track plan" to alternatives by his own admission will take a minimum of 10 years to impliment with no guarantees. In the meantime, fuel prices affect consumers all through the distribution chain, raising prices far beyond any real wage growth. The longer Congress stalls, the less buying power consumers have. It serves as a regressive burden on the economy, hitting lower wage earners harder as it erodes disposable income and slows the economy. It's simple supply and demand economics, and frankly I'm sick of having to get the supply from other places when we have it right here. And how the hell are we going to be able to construct a public transit system modeled after europe? This has been talked about before in this forum... we are much too spread out here in this country for something like that to be logical.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Dude I'm with you on the republican abuses of power... I totally agree and this is why, like you, i am sickened by the direction that the GOP has gone. I can't stand McCain either, and I hate to have to think about voting in an election where I have to say, "ok which one is the lesser of 2 evils?" Come to think of it, I can't remember the last time I was excited about a presidential candidate. But anyway, I don't like McCain either. But the point is, HE was compromising... in their direction. They were getting the good end of that deal. I wouldn't say it was democrats compromising at all... they were pulling a (so called) republican over to their side to sign on to their type of legislation. When I see Barbara Boxer latching on to an energy bill drafted by Mitch McConnell, I'll believe in 2 way compromise. I think it's pretty simple about Congress being at fault actually. Besides the fact they promised they would do something to ease costs 18 months ago and haven't, they are the ones preventing us from being able to increase our own supply. I was in Malaysia last month and gas was cheap as fuck there. The new oil isn't going to dry up. Between the OCS, what we know we have here under ground, and the oil shale, we have 3x the reserves as the middle east. The new technology we have to get that oil can have us pumping it in boatloads in 2 years, not the previously hearalded 7 to 10 that the Dems say. We have plenty of supply, but congress blocks every opportunity to get at it. The execuative OCS moratorium has been lifted to drill now (which shot oil prices down $18 per barrel instantly), and Congress is the only thing standing in the way of allowing access to our own supply. There is no substitute for oil and there won't be any time soon... even Obama's new "fast track plan" to alternatives by his own admission will take a minimum of 10 years to impliment with no guarantees. In the meantime, fuel prices affect consumers all through the distribution chain, raising prices far beyond any real wage growth. The longer Congress stalls, the less buying power consumers have. It serves as a regressive burden on the economy, hitting lower wage earners harder as it erodes disposable income and slows the economy. It's simple supply and demand economics, and frankly I'm sick of having to get the supply from other places when we have it right here. And how the hell are we going to be able to construct a public transit system modeled after europe? This has been talked about before in this forum... we are much too spread out here in this country for something like that to be logical.

We have our differences, so I guess we agree to disagree on most things. I still don't believe Dems are uncomprimising, nor are they responsible for high oil prices. Are you willing to trade off increasing the already record breaking carbon gas build-up for a short term solution to conventional energy supply?

As for Rush Limbaugh, I think he is a far-right authoritarian radio pundit, and I pay no attention to his radical rhetoric. I ask you this question. How do you comprimise with an authoritarian absolutists?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss The hair splitting is not happening on my end. Eat up is propoganda? lol that's rich. What he said does not directly infer that any soldier talking negatively about the war is a phony in his eyes. That's exactly who he was fucking talking about. To infer anything else is to take that out of context. That is the disconnect; he was not speaking in generalities, he was specifically talking about Jesse McBeth and people like him WHO ARE PHONY that pop out of nowhere... what's to infer? Media Matters who ran with the story are the ones who put it into generalities. When the caller referred to soldeirs who pop out of the blue and spout to the media, it was also in the context of Jesse McBeth, as both he and Rush were on the same page about what they were talking about. Why can't he clarify the whole thing with his words and be believed? You and others who dislike him or don't agree with him refuse to believe he could possibly speak the truth, so you say that you know and can explain his words better than him. That just doesn't make much sense.

What other soldiers have popped up out of the blue with fake credentials to critisize the war?


When he replied he said "soldiers" implying more than one.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton We have our differences, so I guess we agree to disagree on most things. I still don't believe Dems are uncomprimising, nor are they responsible for high oil prices. Are you willing to trade off increasing the already record breaking carbon gas build-up for a short term solution to conventional energy supply? As for Rush Limbaugh, I think he is a far-right authoritarian radio pundit, and I pay no attention to his radical rhetoric. I ask you this question. How do you comprimise with an authoritarian absolutists?

Yes... I am willing to do the trade off because it's not short term given what we have in actual supply, and our economy is the number 1 priority for this country to function IMO.

I guess your last question is rhetorical. I'll catch you on the next hot topic man.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis What other soldiers have popped up out of the blue with fake credentials to critisize the war? When he replied he said "soldiers" implying more than one.

Scott Thomas Beauchamp

The New Republic, who first shared this jackball's fake line of bullshit had to eventually retract and apologize, after he was caught lying just like McBeth.

quote:

In retrospect, we never should have put Beauchamp in this situation. He was a young soldier in a war zone, an untried writer without journalistic training. We published his accounts of sensitive events while granting him the shield of anonymity�which, in the wrong hands, can become license to exaggerate, if not fabricate.

Here's an instant-message exchange with Beauchamp on page 8 of the retraction report about the non-existent disfigured civilian female contractor (referred to as "the Crypt Keeper") whom Beauchamp claimed he had taunted while on the battlefront in Iraq, supposedly a sign of how war dehumanized him and his fellow soldiers. When challenged Beauchamp then claimed that it happened in Kuwait. Before he had gone to war. Here�s the moment of emblematic moment of discovery:

quote:

TNR: so where did you see the crypt keeper? Beauchamp: are you there? TNR: yes Beauchamp: the last thing i got was �where did you see the crypt keeper� TNR: yes Beauchamp: the dfac on falcon or chow hall, as it IS commonly called TNR: what about kuwait? Beauchamp: brb [be right back] Nine minutes of silence TNR: you there? Ten minutes of silence Beauchamp: ok just did a sworn statement TNR: about? Beauchamp: saying that i wrote the articles TNR: ok Beauchamp: theyre taking away mylaptop TNR: fuck is this it for communication? Beauchamp: yeah and im fucked TNR: they said that? Beauchamp: because you�re right the Crypt Keeper WAS in Kuwait FUCK FUCK FUCK. this is bad isnt it TNR: yes

Surprised you never heard of this story man! Maybe if you listened to Rush....

j/k man... I'm done politicking for tonight. As always, I enjoyed the battle

SO now we're up to 2. Out of 140,000 troops in Iraq.

and if i pulled out 3, you'd want 4. My point was proven. It's never enough to get you to agree with me, is it Clovis?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.