|
The New Yorker cover of Obama (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Clovis |
| 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 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 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 ing love Rush. We could go on all day about the other , 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 ing 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 ing 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 ing 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 élite 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. |
|
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| 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. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| 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 ing 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? :stongue: :stongue: 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. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
You ing 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 ing 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 ing 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 ing 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. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
That is the ing 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? :stongue: :stongue: 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 beaten out of it, and it all becomes the same bull 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. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| 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." ing 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? |
|
|
| The17sss |
| 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 ing 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 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 ing worthless |
|
|
| Krypton |
| 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 ing 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 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 ing 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. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| 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 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. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| 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 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? |
|
|
| Clovis |
| 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 ing 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. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
