• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Limbaugh Rallies Conservatives to Fight Democrats, Find 'Right Candidate'

I think one of the biggest mistakes we can make is to use the results of the latest election to gage the conservative/liberal leanings of the American people. If that were the case, then we'd have to assume the basic ideology of Americans swung wildly back and forth from the 1980s to the early 1990s and then somehow back to the precarious middle again. Now back to the left.
Well what else are we going to use? Your vote is your voice. The majority of people clearly did not want the current form of the GOP in power, and that is evidenced by the Democratic majority in the House, Senate, and the election of Obama. And I don't see any true conservative voting for Obama because they didn't like McCain. Surely you're not suggesting that the conservative base just gave up and didn't turn out because they had McCain as a nominee?

I think what's true is that Limbaugh and Hannity are not nearly as 'whacko' right as many on the left would like to have us believe. They do, in fact, represent a good majority of Americans well-within the mainstream of political thought. Just as Katie Couric or Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman are also within the 'mainstream', though on the other end of it.
We'll disagree on this as I feel that they are extreme in their views. Limbaugh in my opinion is certainly very far right and very hyperpartisan. Hannity is simply a talking head like that idiot Chris Matthews. He literally gushes.
Limbaugh and Hannity are generally targeted not because of the fringeness of their ideas... but because of the enormous audiences they generate, and the power that comes with that.
With Hannity I'll agree with you, he doesn't really have any ideas of his own. He's a mouthpiece in my mind and that's fine. With Limbaugh, I personally think he's targeted because he embodies the boisterous right wing asshole element of conservatism.
 
Funny how you've been here and are talking like you know my position on this. You've been here for....3 days?

I've been around long enough to know logic fallacies when I see them.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

How many of your posts do I need to read before I know your position on this?

;)
 
I find his war cries to be hypocritical.

If it's hypocritical for someone who did not serve in Vietnam to support the current military action, then is it just as hypocritical for someone who did serve in Vietnam to oppose current military action?

:confused:
 
Well what else are we going to use? Your vote is your voice. The majority of people clearly did not want the current form of the GOP in power, and that is evidenced by the Democratic majority in the House, Senate, and the election of Obama. And I don't see any true conservative voting for Obama because they didn't like McCain. Surely you're not suggesting that the conservative base just gave up and didn't turn out because they had McCain as a nominee?

That's EXACTLY what I'm suggesting. McCain was a disaster of a candidate. Just as Mondale and Dukakis were disasters for the Democrats. There's a reason so many have been fawning over Obama these past few years... not simply because of his ideas. After all, is ideas aren't really that different than Hillary Clinton's. He gave a fantastic speech at the convention several years ago that inspired his base. There's something to be said about inspiration. McCain never had that. His defeat was pre-ordained.


We'll disagree on this as I feel that they are extreme in their views. Limbaugh in my opinion is certainly very far right and very hyperpartisan. Hannity is simply a talking head like that idiot Chris Matthews. He literally gushes.

I won't argue with your points here, except to say that being a gushing talking head does not necessarily mean a pundit is 'out of the mainstream' of American values. Whether that's Rush gushing about Bush or Katie Couric gushing about Obama.
 
No. You see the republicans were neutered until Obama told Republicans not to listen to Limbaugh.
Absolutely false. The Republicans weren't neutered, they were reeling from a major defeat, it's happened before, and they've come back. Don't give Obama more credit than he's due. The GOP beat itself because internally it was seeking change from it's recent history. See the nomination of John McCain.

Before that moment I thought this is going to be baaaaaaaaaaaaaad for the R's. The R's seemed whipped. Obama had sucked out a lot of oxygen.
Then THE MAN himself came to the rescue. He did two things:
It is bad for the GOP, and the U.S. is going to have Obama for eight years. If you think his voter base is going to shrink over the next four years you're mistaken. If anything it will grow. He'll be getting us out of a highly unpopular war and capitalizing on the fact that the Bush administration led this economy into the death spiral it's in. He already has a strong platform for 2012. With the MSM at this side (whether you like it or not it's reality) Obama will carry eight years in the White House.

1. He woke up the R's, and now there is the beginnings of unease. They may have passed Porkzilla quick, but now it is a pinata for Republicans to smash with impugnity.
Sure they can smash it all they want. What do you think the media message is going to be?

2. He elevated Limbaugh to co-combatant status. Limbaugh writes an economic proposal, writes about the Censorship Doctine, and is all over the media lie never before... all because of Obama.
Not true. Limbaugh elevated himself to where he's at. He's doing like any political/media savvy figure does and he's capitalizing on the situation. Obama didn't make Limbaugh a figure head for the right...just look at your own statements. The man has always had a huge audience. The GOP is a wreck and trying to pick itself up right now. Limbaugh is right where he's always been, in their ear. Now he's just in front of the camera behind a podium.

Extreme right? You mean those of us who cherish the Constitution and its brilliance?
No, I mean the extreme right. I'm a Democrat and I cherish the constitution as well. That is not a mutually exclusive position you get to claim. Unless you are going to engage me in hyperpartisan rhetoric.

What is it about the Constitution you do not like?
Well, I spoke too soon I see.

The R's:

We do not like seeing the courts or schools used as political weapons.
Could have fooled me.
We do not like being taxed to ridiculous levels.
But judging from the last eight years you certainly like to borrow and spend to ridiculous levels. So what would you consider being "taxed to ridiculous levels" anyway?
We dislike class warfare.
So do Democrats.
We dislike the nation being Balkanized.
So do Democrats. Can you give an example of that actually happening here in the U.S.
We love and respect the men and women who serve in our Military.
So do Democrats.
We believe in protecting our borders.
So do Democrats.
We want safe streets.
Which is why Bush and Co. with Republican backing stripped desperately needed money to state and local law enforcement and funneled it into bigger federal government. The Dems under Obama are returning that funding, this should make you happy.
We want to have government get off our backs.
Okay, how do you mean "off our backs." That's one of those generalized statements that gets slung around at coffee shops by old people.
We believe Americans should be treated the same under the eyes of the law.
As do democrats.

In short, we want limited government.
Strong where it should be strong and weak where it should be weak.
Not in judging the last eight years you don't seem to.
Obama, and most Libs have these priorities backwards.
Not at all.
Limbaugh simply has fun pissing off Libs (by mocking them and illustrating the ridiculousness of their ways) by telling the truth! He, as Paul Harvey used to say... tells.. "the rest of the stoh-reh".
Right, in other words he's a caustically vocal right wing asshole. We have Randy Rhoades as our cross to bear.

You do not get an audience his size, that long... without coercion... by being honest and funny. He's both.
What? :rofl You just said you don't get an audience of his size and for that long by doing that. And I'll disagree. I don't think he's all that honest at times and certainly not funny. Right wing talk radio is what it is. He's popular. So? He still doesn't get the job done otherwise he would have been there doing it this last election. He tells you what you want to hear, or what he wants you to hear. This is no magic weapon.
Again, the opposite. Somebody has to articulate the similar failures of Carter and Obama. Limbaugh is up to the task.
Well as soon as he can do that honestly, we'll see what happens.
Obama is the problem.
Maybe, but not for the reasons we talking about here. The GOP is it's own problem.
For a man touting Hope for 18 months...
Who beat the GOP into utter submission. What's that say about your party direction? That a trouble making, liberal, marxist, racist, crack smoking, non-citizen, amateur politician with terrorists as friends can walk in and just blow your candidate and your party off the map?
He leaves the stench of hopelessness. Negativity. Depression.
Actually, I think that what you are smelling might be the current state of the GOP. The Dems and the voters that put them in the majority are pretty happy, hopeful, and upbeat about things.
 
Last edited:
That's EXACTLY what I'm suggesting. McCain was a disaster of a candidate. Just as Mondale and Dukakis were disasters for the Democrats.
And who is responsible for the nomination of John McCain? The Democrats? Judging by the voter turn out percentages, 2008 was no different than in years past except that more people went to the polls overall. In fact percentage wise it was higher than any presidential election since 1968. The conservatives did in fact go to the polls, they just got outnumbered by other voters...the democratic liberal kind. The numbers don't lie.

There's a reason so many have been fawning over Obama these past few years... not simply because of his ideas. After all, is ideas aren't really that different than Hillary Clinton's. He gave a fantastic speech at the convention several years ago that inspired his base. There's something to be said about inspiration. McCain never had that. His defeat was pre-ordained.
So you're saying the conservative movement would just sit out and idealistically sell their country out to the liberals simply because McCain wasn't charismatic enough? I'll take an opposing position here and say that McCain was overwhelmingly the choice among Republicans because he represented a change from what the party has become in the last sixteen years. There is a an obvious shift in this nation to a more center left lean. Right wing conservatism influence is certainly waning in the U.S. His nomination is clear and convincing proof of that.

I won't argue with your points here, except to say that being a gushing talking head does not necessarily mean a pundit is 'out of the mainstream' of American values. Whether that's Rush gushing about Bush or Katie Couric gushing about Obama.
I can get on board with that.
 
Last edited:
If it's hypocritical for someone who did not serve in Vietnam to support the current military action, then is it just as hypocritical for someone who did serve in Vietnam to oppose current military action?

:confused:

Not sure. Does the opinion of somebody who's never chopped down a tree count as much as that of somebody who lost their legs chopping down a tree? ;)
 
And who is responsible for the nomination of John McCain? The Democrats? Judging by the voter turn out percentages, 2008 was no different than in years past except that more people went to the polls overall. In fact percentage wise it was higher than any presidential election since 1968. The conservatives did in fact go to the polls, they just got outnumbered by other voters...the democratic liberal kind. The numbers don't lie.

No, the numbers don't lie. But they can be mis-interpreted. Election turnout varies from election to election, either because one or either side, or both, choose to stay home. Or because one side or the other are energized:

presidential-turnout-rates-1948-2008.jpg


The fact that liberals turned out in far greater numbers to vote for Obama this election does not, by necessity, mean that conservatives were swayed to vote for him. It does not signal some great ideological shift in the electorate. It only means, as you rightly point out, they were outnumbered by liberals who were 'inspired' to got out and vote. In a way they had not been inspired for years.

So you're saying the conservative movement would just sit out and idealistically sell their country out to the liberals simply because McCain wasn't charismatic enough?

I voted. I did not vote for McCain. I did not vote for Obama. I did not 'sell my country out. I think that's an odd characterization.

I'll take an opposing position here and say that McCain was overwhelmingly the choice among Republicans...

Go back and review the primary results. McCain was NEVER the overwhelming choice among GOP voters. He squeaked through consistently with roughly a third of the vote or so in the primaries until every other contender dropped out.
 
Not sure. Does the opinion of somebody who's never chopped down a tree count as much as that of somebody who lost their legs chopping down a tree? ;)

That's a great question.

I suppose if one were to take the position that those who have the most experience fighting, or better yet, are now fighting, are the best policy-makers... then the correct course of action in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan would be to let the military commanders on the ground and in the Pentagon make the decisions about when, where, and how to manage these conflicts.

Good idea?
 
Not sure. Does the opinion of somebody who's never chopped down a tree count as much as that of somebody who lost their legs chopping down a tree? ;)

Did Barack Obama ever serve in the military? :doh
 
One thing I'm pretty certain about. I if met someone who'd lost his legs chopping down a tree, the LAST thing I'd do is ask him for his advice and instruction concerning the finer points of tree chopping.

;)
 
I completely support the right embracing the visionary wisdom of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Colter. Good luck in all your future endeavors.
big_up.gif
 
I won't argue with your points here, except to say that being a gushing talking head does not necessarily mean a pundit is 'out of the mainstream' of American values. Whether that's Rush gushing about Bush or Katie Couric gushing about Obama.

I'll take issue with this part of your post. Katie Couric portrays herself as non-partisan and objective in the dissemination of the news, but she might as well be wearing her candidates campaign button while she is on air. Chris Mathews, another so called objective journalist, reports a tingle running up his leg??? and becomes almost sexually aroused when he reports on the Bamster.

Rush on the other hand is completely honest about where he's coming from. Nothing bi-partisan here it's all conservatism all the time. Love him or hate him but he ain't lying.

So they both advocate and only Rush is honest.
 
No, the numbers don't lie. But they can be mis-interpreted. Election turnout varies from election to election, either because one or either side, or both, choose to stay home. Or because one side or the other are energized:

presidential-turnout-rates-1948-2008.jpg
There is nothing being misrepresented or misinterpreted. The bottom line is, and more to the point what I'm trying to communicate, that the nation is shifting left, and the GOP is in dire straits. The internal struggle within the GOP to define what it actually stands for is evidenced by that.
The fact that liberals turned out in far greater numbers to vote for Obama this election does not, by necessity, mean that conservatives were swayed to vote for him.
I understand this, and that is kind of my point. More people are turning out and more people, as in a majority of Americans, are voting Democrat.

It does not signal some great ideological shift in the electorate.
It does indeed signal an ideological shift among the electorate in that the percentage of separation between the numbers on the right and left is growing to the benefit of the left. Is it a "great ideological shift?" Not great, no, but it is fairly strong. And as you have pointed out, it sends the signal that among the percentage of voters out there, the democrats are much more inspired or driven to participate in the process and change the direction of our government. This is evidenced by the voter turnout and the percentages of the split. Again, the great disparity here really highlights the problems within the GOP. They aren't inspired, they are torn internally over whether their future is to be moderate or conservative. If they weren't McCain wouldn't have gotten over 72% of the GOP delegates.
It only means, as you rightly point out, they were outnumbered by liberals who were 'inspired' to got out and vote. In a way they had not been inspired for years.
And we have some common ground on this issue. But it doesn't only mean more people got out when you look at the totality of the election and it's effect on the country.
I voted. I did not vote for McCain. I did not vote for Obama. I did not 'sell my country out. I think that's an odd characterization.
Well I think most politically active people are aware of the realistic issues regarding the duopoly of our system. Voting for Ron Paul might as well be sitting out for any effect it's going to have on the election. I understand that you are using your vote as your voice, but at the same time I would think that most Republicans would never just sit idly by and watch the Dems sweep the House, Senate, and Presidency. The Republicans went to the polls and there is no evidence that any significant number sat out or voted third party in protest. If you add up all of the third party votes they don't equal even 1.5%. That's not abnormally high.

Go back and review the primary results. McCain was NEVER the overwhelming choice among GOP voters. He squeaked through consistently with roughly a third of the vote or so in the primaries until every other contender dropped out.

McCain absolutely was the overwhelming choice. He received over 47% of the popular vote in an essentially three way race. He got well over twice the votes of his two strongest opponents (Romney 21.7%, Huckabee 20%) and ended up capturing over 72% of the delegates.
 
Hey Rush - While you are hoping Obama fails, consider this - We had 8 long years of fail already. Enough is enough.
 
Well all those that voted for socialism don't know what the hell they've done. Most Europeans have a work ethic, unlike a large group here.
 
Hey Rush - While you are hoping Obama fails, consider this - We had 8 long years of fail already. Enough is enough.
You're talking silly, I think you're better than that.
 
Nothing wrong with the GOP, a few rogue elements strayed off course.
Right, and you got the 2008 Presidential election as a result. The GOP is a wreck.

Bush pulled off two wars
The problem is you don't see the problem.
and kept the economy on an even keel through a catastrophic terrorist attack and a massive natural disaster.
Through mortgaging our future through borrow and spend.

It wasn't until the dems took over in '07 that we saw gas prices almost double, bank failures and the housing market crash, all under the watchful eyes of Barney Fwank and Chris Dodd.
This is laughable. You truly have no idea what you are talking about.

Now we get to sit back and laugh as some half assed community organizer tries to bull**** his way through one fiasco after another, in less than 30 days. Almost everyone of his appointments is a lobbyist, tax cheat or under investigation. He's spent more in his first month in office than Bush did in 8 years, so much for fiscal responsibility.
More hyperpartisan vitriol spewed forth in a misleading attempt to discredit the President. Fine, I get it...it's what you do. At least the money he is spending is going into THIS nation, and not into nation building in Iraq and fat cost plus contracts.
The start of this new administration couldn't have been scripted better by Republicans, truly a joy watching these liberal slapnuts.
What is your fixation with that word? Do you really like it that much or would you like me to loan you a couple so you can spice your posts up a bit?

I made several observations. You ran in, like usual, your mouth a blazing, attacking a talk show host with the typical liberal rhetoric.
No, you made exactly one post with two pointless sentences, one of which was simply an insult aimed at liberals. The rest of your posts have been playing "hard ass right wing" type to my "reasonable and intelligent" type. But it's your reality...:roll:


Pretty sad, the democrats spending so much time, money and energy trying to defeat a talk show host with legislation. It's so pathetic, yet incredibly funny at the same time.
Whew yeah, so sad yet funny. Good thing President Obama is against it.
 
Last edited:
Well all those that voted for socialism don't know what the hell they've done. Most Europeans have a work ethic, unlike a large group here.

Right, I keep hearing these claims. Oblivious liberals throwing this nation into the clutches of evil socialism and what not. Well, I guess I'm one of those that is just going to have see how evil this evil socialism we've gotten ourselves into turns out to be. Boy I'm gonna feel really dumb if they start opening up gulags and nationalizing all of our industry in a couple of years.

I heard they were selling Che' flags right off the White House web site? Is this for true? :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Or maybe it's because the Rinos ran the perfect moderate candidate in the last election and he got his pasty white rear handed to him? Ronaldus Magness spanked the Libs like little girls twice while they owned both houses.
Exactly right. Conservatives either didn't show up to vote or voted 3rd party because there was no point in electing another RINO, I did vote McCain begrudgingly because I knew what a Democrat clean sweep had the potential to be devastating, hope I'm wrong on that, but we'll see.
 
Exactly right. Conservatives either didn't show up to vote or voted 3rd party because there was no point in electing another RINO, I did vote McCain begrudgingly because I knew what a Democrat clean sweep had the potential to be devastating, hope I'm wrong on that, but we'll see.

If the bolded portion is true, then conservatives make such a small element of the voting right that their absence from the polls or impact on third party candidates wasn't even statistically noticeable.
 
If the bolded portion is true, then conservatives make such a small element of the voting right that their absence from the polls or impact on third party candidates wasn't even statistically noticeable.
I'd say Obama getting 52% of the vote, McCain losing by running as a "centrist" with a heavy history of leaning left, and Democrats winning because of Republican government increases and expenditures out of line with conservative values spoke volumes.
 
Right, I keep hearing these claims. Oblivious liberals throwing this nation into the clutches of evil socialism and what not. Well, I guess I'm one of those that is just going to have see how evil this evil socialism we've gotten ourselves into turns out to be. Boy I'm gonna feel really dumb if they start opening up gulags and nationalizing all of our industry in a couple of years.

I heard they were selling Che' flags right off the White House web site? Is this for true? :mrgreen:

The evil part of socialism doesn't require gulags. It just steals the incentive away from the American Dream and promises fairness in return, which of course is a steaming pile of horse manure.

If you use a Major League Baseball game as an example. The rules for this game are well known and the guys in striped shirts are positioned in such a way as to be able to reach any part of the field by the time a play actually takes place. There are thousands of fans in the stadium and possibly millions watching on TV. There are maybe a dozen state of the art cameras filming every aspect of the game from any conceivable angle. There is no way something can happen here that's unfair, with every possible precaution to make sure the game is played fairly. But listen to the fans as they leave, they'll be talking about the big play and more importantly the bad call, it wasn't fair. If this situation can't insure fairness how can we expect a horribly inefficient and corrupt government to, we can't.

Fairness is a fairy tale for the simple minded. The market delegates winners and losers according to wits, wisdom, and luck. There's no guarantee, that's where the American Dream lives, in the individuals' ability to learn to play the game, to benefit because he's more dedicated, because he's better at assessing risk, because he has earned it. What we have decided to do is punish the majority of wealthy people (anyone who has more than me) who simply work harder and take risk, so we can get to those few we have decided don't deserve what they have, because it's not fair. If I can't have it....he shouldn't have it either.
 
Hey Rush - While you are hoping Obama fails, consider this - We had 8 long years of fail already. Enough is enough.


Yes, and Rush was a huge fan of Bush for all that time. I'd say Rush has some credibility issues.
 
The evil part of socialism doesn't require gulags. It just steals the incentive away from the American Dream and promises fairness in return, which of course is a steaming pile of horse manure.

If you use a Major League Baseball game as an example. The rules for this game are well known and the guys in striped shirts are positioned in such a way as to be able to reach any part of the field by the time a play actually takes place. There are thousands of fans in the stadium and possibly millions watching on TV. There are maybe a dozen state of the art cameras filming every aspect of the game from any conceivable angle. There is no way something can happen here that's unfair, with every possible precaution to make sure the game is played fairly. But listen to the fans as they leave, they'll be talking about the big play and more importantly the bad call, it wasn't fair. If this situation can't insure fairness how can we expect a horribly inefficient and corrupt government to, we can't.

Fairness is a fairy tale for the simple minded. The market delegates winners and losers according to wits, wisdom, and luck. There's no guarantee, that's where the American Dream lives, in the individuals' ability to learn to play the game, to benefit because he's more dedicated, because he's better at assessing risk, because he has earned it. What we have decided to do is punish the majority of wealthy people (anyone who has more than me) who simply work harder and take risk, so we can get to those few we have decided don't deserve what they have, because it's not fair. If I can't have it....he shouldn't have it either.

Well, then why don't you show me where the Democrats are going to kill the American dream then. Start with some examples and logically lead me to the disaster that is sure to come.
 
Back
Top Bottom