Looks like a white flag to me. Something about an offer to take it to a True Debate does cause that to happen..................:mrgreen:
My post was out of line, thus the removal of the picture. I apologize to you for that, Sir Loin. I was wrong to do that.
In general, though, I don't think we have anything to "true debate" here.
I made an opinion statement that I clearly qualified as an opinion statement. You said it was factually incorrect, without actually citing any facts.
I've repeatedly asked for you to cite the source you claim exists, you repeatedly failed to do so.
So what are we going to true debate about?
The need to cite sources when making calims of factual innacuracy?
I'll gladly true debate that topic with you.
I say that when someone makes a claim of another poster being factually incorrect, they MUST include a source.
You clearly believe otherwise, given the fact that you have yet to produce a source.
If you'd like to true debate the need to support claims of factual innacuracy, let's do it.
But if you want to true debate about our opinions on the matter, unbacked by sources, what's the point?
I think Rush listeners are disenfranchised. I think this is evidenced by the fact that small-government conservatives do not have decent representation in the government, and have not had decent representation in the governement in my adult life.
And right now there is even less small-government conservative representation than there was in the past. There is no "Goldwater" in the party right now.
I don't feel that the neo-cons represent the Rush audience, ergo, Just because the GOP was in power, doesn't mean that conservativism was decently represented in the government. This is the rationale that was behind my "disenfranchised" comment.
It was not an insult to Rush listeners, even though it seems that you may have taken it as such by comparing it to calling them "Stupid" or "uneducated".
The term "disenfranchised" is totally unrelated to a lack of intelligence.
Actually, if anything, there may be a
inverse relationship. The more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to be disenfranchised by our govenremnt because it is more likely that they see and understand how it doesn't really work for our best interests at all times.
I would self-apply the label of "disenfranchised" because I feel there is next to no representation of my ideologies in the government (which is anti-federalist). The GOP is closer to my ideology than the Dems in general, but that doesn't mean that they adequately represent my ideals.
As has been noted by many Rush fans, he is
not a GOP apologist. He is conservative first and foremost. When the GOP is not representing conservative ideology, he slams them. And he'll slam them hard (Just look at what he has said about McCain).
He gives an influential voice to those who feel that they are not being represented by their government, regardless of the party that is not representing them.
If anything, this is a positive trait that Rush has, as I've said already in this thread.
Giving voice to those who want their voices heard is not a bad thing.
That is primarily what political talk show hosts do. They give voice to the complaints/grievances/issues their consumers have.
Rush does this very well, and that's why his ratings are huge.
The fact that his ratings are huge, means that there is a large portion of the population who feel as he does: that certain members of the government do certain things that they feel are not in their best interests.
My comment about his listeners being "disenfranchised" wasn't something to be taken as a negative regarding Rush listeners, or even Rush himself. It was a negative about our representatives in government and how they fail to adequately represent the people.
I'm sorry if you took it as a stereotype assault on the intelligence of his audience. It was not. I'm not in the crowd that you associated me with.
I have never, and will never, make negative statemnts about Rush Listeners because the fact is that they are some of the most politically informed people out there.
I may not always agree with them on certain issues (typically, those would be social issues, but only at a local level, at the federal level I am against the application of uniformly applying social programs. I'm anti-roe v. wade but pro-choice, for example) but I can agree with many of the principles that they hold (a small federal government).
And in my initial comment, I did not try to impugn Rush for wanting Obama to fail. It had already been pointed out what he meant by this regarding Obama's policies, so I made the comment with teh understanding that this was already known.
I don't think wanting Obama to fail is unpatriotic, nor is it something that I find all that negative. I never ellaborated on what that statement meant. It is a fact that he has said he wants Obama to fail. It had been described already what was meant by this. I made the comment with the belief that there was an understanding already extant on what Rush meant by this.
I never said that Rush wanting Obama to fail = Rush wanting America to fail.
Other people have made that claim, but I am not one of them. If you'd like to debate those people on that, then target them, not me. Again, in this case you made a claim that it is normal to argue that Rush ignores context while ignoring the contest Rush used (paraphrased). By quoting me, and then making such a comment, it is clear that you meant to say that I was the one doing so.
Teh desire for the policies to fail is two-fold.
1. He doesn't want the legislation to pass inthe first place because he thinks it is bad legislation
2. If it does pass, he hopes it doesn't do what is intended, because that will lead us down the path to socialism.
He basically has said that if such legislation passes, and then works as intended, then there is no "return". That it will be the end of America as we know it, so to say. (i.e. if it works as intended, it will mean failure for America, because the policies are bad)
Whereas, if it passes and then fails to work as intended, recovery is possible. Conservativism would receive new adherents and gain enough support to bring us back to what he believes we should be. (i.e. if it doesn't work as intended, it will be a success for America because the policies are inherently bad).
In essence, I think that he believes if there are short-term successes, it will lead to long term failure.
But if there are short-term failures, it will lead to long-term success.
This coincides with his views regarding recession. A recession must pass over time. Trying to expidite recovery to ease the short-term burden will only lead to long-term hardship. Thus, it is preferable to deal with the short-term failures that lead to long-term success.
In other words, sometimes short-term hardship is warranted for the long-term benefits it will create.
I think I actually understand his POV on the issue, and to a degree I can support the concept.
Just because I didn't explain this while giving an opinion statement doesn't mean I was taking him out of context.
And let's say that situation two I decribed above occurs, and Obama's plans fail to do what is intended (no short-term benefits). That is a positive for Rush. It will prove him correct on how the policies are failures, and it could create a resurgence of conservativism in the country.
Think about it like this, had carter been successful, there would not have been a Reagan, because Carter would have probably won re-election.
The best way for the conservatives to be represented again is for Obama to mimmick Carter in efficacy.