• 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!

Powell cautions against a GOP slide to the right

Thales said:
I'm not a fan of that logic either, but I would cordially point out that the most recent batch of Congressional Republicans didn't do such a bang-up job balancing the budget.

And as a moderate (or at least self-proclaimed), it's not like we're crashing the GOP tent yelling, "Let us in!" It's just that the tent has gotten rather small, and Republicans might be quite lonely if they only pander to those already in there.
Click to expand...

Well that's okay if you don't like "OUR" tent and think it is too small; the Democrats will tell you whatever it is you want to hear to get you into their tent. Just don't expect them to listen to you after they are elected or care what you think.

This last election was the perfect example; a farcical claim of fiscal irresponsibility against Republicans, then they get elected and put us into an astronomical deficit without ONE single debate about how to pay for it all.

Yep, gotta love that Democrat fiscal responsibility, transparency and integrity. Funny how they railed about how responsible raising taxes is when their opponents inhabit the White House, but since they got there, they don't want to TOUCH that topic. We call this hypocrisy combined with a lack of honesty and integrity sprinkled with hyperbolic attacks on their political opponents.

:2wave:
 
Truth Detector said:
While this debate is an OBVIOUS Liberal media campaign to support the idiotic notion that this Country is moving LEFT and Democrats are apparently seizing power that will lead to a two decade majority; I would like to send this message to misguided person like Powell who CLAIM they have not left the Republican Party and that the Party must look more like the Democrats to be relevant.

Nothing could be further from the TRUTH Mr. Powell; and while I did have great respect for your service under two Republican Presidents, your position and claims are false and indeed farcical.

First your claim that you are a Republican; I assure you that NO ONE with Conservative Values could have endorsed an inexperienced community Organizing Liberal Leftist like Obama. The notion that you have a Conservative bone left in your body requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Secondly, your claims that Cheney and Rush Limbaugh are somehow causing a rightward lurch in the Republican Party require an equal suspension of disbelief.

Rush and Dick Cheney didn't invent Conservatism; they represent it in their comments and statements and are 100% correct about your political positions.

The notion that the Republicans should become MORE like the Democrats for the pure reason to "appeal" to more voters in order to get elected is light-years’ away from what the ideology represents. The notion that I or any other TRUE Conservative would be a member of a party that parrots Democrats in trying to be anything you want it to be for the pure purpose of getting "elected" is the reason you SHOULD take Dick's advice and just change your affiliation. The notion that you have a say in Republican primaries concerns me.

We do not NEED to become LIKE the Democrats; the Republican Party NEEDS to go back to its core principles and become Conservative again.

I am always amused by moderates like you who fall for the Liberal media's false portrayal of people like Bush. They claim he was a BIG spender and just Democrat "light." Then on the other hand brand him as some incarnation of evil for actually doing what he says he will do.

Colin, trust me when I say this; Rush speaks more for my views and values than YOU will ever do and which is the reason he has so much influence among REAL Conservatives. So do yourself and the Republicans a favor; sign up with the Democrats whom you now endorse and support. We don't want or need you or people like you in the party and if it means we should wander in the political wilderness until people can be reminded why Liberals should be relegated to the fringes of political power again; so be it.

Carry on sir and thank you for your great service to this Great Nation; I am sure the Democrats will welcome you with open arms just as they did with Alen Spector and use your defection as propaganda to suggest that the nation is now Liberal.


Powell cautions against a GOP slide to the right
The former secretary of State aims his remarks at conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, who he says is stifling debate on the party's future.

Reporting from Washington -- Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell warned Sunday that ideological conservatives, particularly radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, had gained a hold over the Republican Party that risked driving the GOP into an extended exile from power.

Powell cautions against a GOP slide to the right - Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...

What seems to slip your mind is that party's are collections of people. Just like different sects of left-wing people exist in the Democratic party, different sects of right-wing people can exist in the Republican party. Your idea that your view is the only view for the Republican party and then blaming Powell for providing a moderate voice shows your hypocrisy.

"A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation" Edmund Burke, one of the founders of Western Conservatism, said that. Do you understand what that means? Clearly not, your more keen to listen to Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh on what Conservatism is.

So if Powell thinks failed policies have been endorsed for 8 years, and he has had personal knowledge to support his thought, then why is it somehow un-conservative for him to support someone who provides change? Is it not rationality to support the person who could repair America's image and reverse failed policies? You say you are sticking by your principles, but it sounds more like Powell is sticking by his.

Conservatism is to be rational and have good judgment. Powell used his good judgement on the color of the situation, not the color of a man's skin.

Rush speaks more for my views and values than YOU will ever do and which is the reason he has so much influence among REAL Conservatives
Click to expand...

"Not seldom has it seemed," Kirk declared, "as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States." Russell Kirk said that at a lecture at the Heritage foundation in 1988. He would probably puke today.

Your thought that neo-conservatism and social conservatism are true conservatism is dead wrong. History has a different story to tell, and I think you owe an apology to Lincoln, Teddy, Eisenhower, GoldWater, and Raegan for that matter.

Anyway, stop recommending to people to leave the Republican party. Instead, leave yourself. I've been in this party all my life and I'm not going to leave just because some arrogant, narrow-minded prick wants to tell me moderates aren't allowed.

We do not NEED to become LIKE the Democrats; the Republican Party NEEDS to go back to its core principles and become Conservative again.
Click to expand...

This argument has absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats or partisan politics. This is about the REPUBLICAN PARTY and its future, stop referring back to liberals for your argument.

In the words of Ronald Reagan: "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism"

PS: You earlier insulted Powell for supporting Obama saying he did it purely because the color of his skin. Did Cheney not publicly support gay marriage purely because his daughters orientation?
 
Last edited:
I find it amusing that some people here are oblivious to their inability to create a truly coherent sense of neoconservatism. For instance, if Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh is to be representative of Neoconservatives (a bit of a mistake, to put lightly), then what do you folks make of FPI and its admitted philosophical embrace of a decent portion of Obama's foreign policy, or dare we say, where neoconservatives agree with democrats on domestic policy?

I guess "real conservatives" (no matter what school of conservatism they probably designate-they are all "real conservatives" and no one else is) on this board need to use Neoconservatives as some sort of flexible Three Stooges act.
 
Last edited:
Tubub said:
What seems to slip your mind is that party's are collections of people. Just like different sects of left-wing people exist in the Democratic party, different sects of right-wing people can exist in the Republican party. Your idea that your view is the only view for the Republican party and then blaming Powell for providing a moderate voice shows your hypocrisy.

"A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation" Edmund Burke, one of the founders of Western Conservatism, said that. Do you understand what that means? Clearly not, your more keen to listen to Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh on what Conservatism is.

So if Powell thinks failed policies have been endorsed for 8 years, and he has had personal knowledge to support his thought, then why is it somehow un-conservative for him to support someone who provides change? Is it not rationality to support the person who could repair America's image and reverse failed policies? You say you are sticking by your principles, but it sounds more like Powell is sticking by his.

Conservatism is to be rational and have good judgment. Powell used his good judgement on the color of the situation, not the color of a man's skin.



"Not seldom has it seemed," Kirk declared, "as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States." Russell Kirk said that at a lecture at the Heritage foundation in 1988. He would probably puke today.

Your thought that neo-conservatism and social conservatism are true conservatism is dead wrong. History has a different story to tell, and I think you owe an apology to Lincoln, Teddy, Eisenhower, GoldWater, and Raegan for that matter.

Anyway, stop recommending to people to leave the Republican party. Instead, leave yourself. I've been in this party all my life and I'm not going to leave just because some arrogant, narrow-minded prick wants to tell me moderates aren't allowed.



This argument has absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats or partisan politics. This is about the REPUBLICAN PARTY and its future, stop referring back to liberals for your argument.

In the words of Ronald Reagan: "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism"

PS: You earlier insulted Powell for supporting Obama saying he did it purely because the color of his skin. Did Cheney not publicly support gay marriage purely because his daughters orientation?
Click to expand...

Outstanding post Tubub. Thanks button is simply not good enough.

:applaud:applaud:applaud
 
Re: Hey Truth Detector, there just one line of truth

Truth Detector said:
Hang on, putting my waders on.....okay back. So what I got out of this babble is blah blah blah radical blah blah crazy blah blah blah sect blah blah blah terrorist blah blah blah antics.

Did that pretty much sum up your banal blather? :roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah, you just tell yourself your the popular girl. :rofl

You should not worry about the waders and worry about the fact your getting your clock cleaned in this debate. Again.
 
Truth Detector said:
Can we save the childish efforts of "smack" for the basement and leave it out of this thread?

Thank you in advance. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Agreed. However I also agree that calling anyone "a Tom" is unnecessarily inflammatory unless their name happens to be Tom. Everyone quit the flaming.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Well, the GOP doesn't really have anything resembling principles. The GOP is nearly identical to the Democrats.

Powell wants to pretend, for reasons that probably have to do with sucking up to the new Kenyah president, that the problems the GOP is having are the result of the GOP NOT moving far enough to the left to scrape off the few Americans it had left in the party.
Click to expand...

The GOP had principles to begin with, and for a while could find arguments for their compromise external to themselves. This is no longer the case.
 
Fiddytree said:
I find it amusing that some people here are oblivious to their inability to create a truly coherent sense of neoconservatism. For instance, if Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh is to be representative of Neoconservatives (a bit of a mistake, to put lightly), then what do you folks make of FPI and its admitted philosophical embrace of a decent portion of Obama's foreign policy, or dare we say, where neoconservatives agree with democrats on domestic policy?

I guess "real conservatives" (no matter what school of conservatism they probably designate-they are all "real conservatives" and no one else is) on this board need to use Neoconservatives as some sort of flexible Three Stooges act.
Click to expand...

A lot of people do toss around the term "neo-conservative. I don't think its a wrongly identifying Cheney as a neo-con or Limbaugh as a social conservative... those are pretty much givens.

By "true conservatives" im referring to the wide range of conservatives that stick to the basic principles of Conservatism.
 
Tubub said:
A lot of people do toss around the term "neo-conservative. I don't think its a wrongly identifying Cheney as a neo-con or Limbaugh as a social conservative... those are pretty much givens.

By "true conservatives" im referring to the wide range of conservatives that stick to the basic principles of Conservatism.
Click to expand...

Great post earlier--BTW.

I would like to interject here, in terms of calling people/things by what they really are:

Rush Limbaugh is a college drop-out who found a niche in talk radio during the Clinton years. He is not a social conservative. He is a performer who plays a social conservative on the radio.

I do not believe that he actually believes (or understands) half the things he says. The arguments are way too thin and unoriginal, the rhetoric too comically extreme (just like the Sam Raimi movie I saw this weekend).

Rush, like Ann Coulter, found a niche and they both put on a performance, memorizing lines, coming up with catch phrases like SNL, selling their merchandise. What they do is very similar to professional wrestling, it's all staged and choreographed.

The biggest joke was earlier in the year when Rush 'challenged' President Obama to an economics debate. A college drop-out wanted to debate a Harvard Law graduate. Talk about delusions of grandeur.:roll:

IMO.
 
hazlnut said:
Great post earlier--BTW.

I would like to interject here, in terms of calling people/things by what they really are:

Rush Limbaugh is a college drop-out who found a niche in talk radio during the Clinton years. He is not a social conservative. He is a performer who plays a social conservative on the radio.

I do not believe that he actually believes (or understands) half the things he says. The arguments are way too thin and unoriginal, the rhetoric too comically extreme (just like the Sam Raimi movie I saw this weekend).

Rush, like Ann Coulter, found a niche and they both put on a performance, memorizing lines, coming up with catch phrases like SNL, selling their merchandise. What they do is very similar to professional wrestling, it's all staged and choreographed.

The biggest joke was earlier in the year when Rush 'challenged' President Obama to an economics debate. A college drop-out wanted to debate a Harvard Law graduate. Talk about delusions of grandeur.:roll:

IMO.
Click to expand...

I really don't want to be the guy defending Rush Limbaugh here, but Bill Gates and a number of other prominent people dropped out of college as well... I'm sure for much different reasons than Rush but still...

And while your right about Limbaugh putting on a show, I think Coulter is just a nutcase.
 
Tubub said:
What seems to slip your mind is that party's are collections of people. Just like different sects of left-wing people exist in the Democratic party, different sects of right-wing people can exist in the Republican party. Your idea that your view is the only view for the Republican party and then blaming Powell for providing a moderate voice shows your hypocrisy.

"A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation" Edmund Burke, one of the founders of Western Conservatism, said that. Do you understand what that means? Clearly not, your more keen to listen to Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh on what Conservatism is.

So if Powell thinks failed policies have been endorsed for 8 years, and he has had personal knowledge to support his thought, then why is it somehow un-conservative for him to support someone who provides change? Is it not rationality to support the person who could repair America's image and reverse failed policies? You say you are sticking by your principles, but it sounds more like Powell is sticking by his.

Conservatism is to be rational and have good judgment. Powell used his good judgement on the color of the situation, not the color of a man's skin.



"Not seldom has it seemed," Kirk declared, "as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States." Russell Kirk said that at a lecture at the Heritage foundation in 1988. He would probably puke today.

Your thought that neo-conservatism and social conservatism are true conservatism is dead wrong. History has a different story to tell, and I think you owe an apology to Lincoln, Teddy, Eisenhower, GoldWater, and Raegan for that matter.

Anyway, stop recommending to people to leave the Republican party. Instead, leave yourself. I've been in this party all my life and I'm not going to leave just because some arrogant, narrow-minded prick wants to tell me moderates aren't allowed.



This argument has absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats or partisan politics. This is about the REPUBLICAN PARTY and its future, stop referring back to liberals for your argument.

In the words of Ronald Reagan: "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism"

PS: You earlier insulted Powell for supporting Obama saying he did it purely because the color of his skin. Did Cheney not publicly support gay marriage purely because his daughters orientation?
Click to expand...

This post is is a great showcase of why I respect most republicans. There is something inherently right about having a set of beliefs, and standing up for them in a logical, rational, and passionate manner.
 
Tubub said:
I really don't want to be the guy defending Rush Limbaugh here, but Bill Gates and a number of other prominent people dropped out of college as well... I'm sure for much different reasons than Rush but still...

And while your right about Limbaugh putting on a show, I think Coulter is just a nutcase.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. :)
 
Tubub said:
I really don't want to be the guy defending Rush Limbaugh here, but Bill Gates and a number of other prominent people dropped out of college as well... I'm sure for much different reasons than Rush but still...

And while your right about Limbaugh putting on a show, I think Coulter is just a nutcase.
Click to expand...

I think Rush Limbaugh believes everything he says.
 
I'm not sure whether the drugster really believes the vitriol he spews or not. I mean, his arguments are so sophomoric and so ridiculous that he can't possibly be that stupid. On the other hand, he has a lot of people who believe what he says which means that people really CAN be that stupid so why not him too? :shock:
 
FlappyTheKinkajou said:
I think Rush Limbaugh believes everything he says.
Click to expand...

must he believe so loudly?

Rush reminds me of a line from Flip Wilson's preacher character Leroy of the "church of what's happening now"....

A lie is just as good as the truth if you can get people to believe it.

So many of our pundits out there are telling lies, and an oft repeated lie begins to sound like truth, to the ignorant at least. In fact, it is a basic method of propaganda that is aimed directly at the ignorant among us.
And the ignorant vote....
 
Tubub said:
What seems to slip your mind is that party's are collections of people. Just like different sects of left-wing people exist in the Democratic party, different sects of right-wing people can exist in the Republican party. Your idea that your view is the only view for the Republican party and then blaming Powell for providing a moderate voice shows your hypocrisy.

"A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation" Edmund Burke, one of the founders of Western Conservatism, said that. Do you understand what that means? Clearly not, your more keen to listen to Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh on what Conservatism is.

So if Powell thinks failed policies have been endorsed for 8 years, and he has had personal knowledge to support his thought, then why is it somehow un-conservative for him to support someone who provides change? Is it not rationality to support the person who could repair America's image and reverse failed policies? You say you are sticking by your principles, but it sounds more like Powell is sticking by his.

Conservatism is to be rational and have good judgment. Powell used his good judgement on the color of the situation, not the color of a man's skin.

"Not seldom has it seemed," Kirk declared, "as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States." Russell Kirk said that at a lecture at the Heritage foundation in 1988. He would probably puke today.

Your thought that neo-conservatism and social conservatism are true conservatism is dead wrong. History has a different story to tell, and I think you owe an apology to Lincoln, Teddy, Eisenhower, GoldWater, and Raegan for that matter.

Anyway, stop recommending to people to leave the Republican party. Instead, leave yourself. I've been in this party all my life and I'm not going to leave just because some arrogant, narrow-minded prick wants to tell me moderates aren't allowed.

This argument has absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats or partisan politics. This is about the REPUBLICAN PARTY and its future, stop referring back to liberals for your argument.

In the words of Ronald Reagan: "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism"

PS: You earlier insulted Powell for supporting Obama saying he did it purely because the color of his skin. Did Cheney not publicly support gay marriage purely because his daughters orientation?
Click to expand...

Are you a Republican or Conservative? Who did you vote for?
 
Fiddytree said:
I find it amusing that some people here are oblivious to their inability to create a truly coherent sense of neoconservatism. For instance, if Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh is to be representative of Neoconservatives (a bit of a mistake, to put lightly), then what do you folks make of FPI and its admitted philosophical embrace of a decent portion of Obama's foreign policy, or dare we say, where neoconservatives agree with democrats on domestic policy?

I guess "real conservatives" (no matter what school of conservatism they probably designate-they are all "real conservatives" and no one else is) on this board need to use Neoconservatives as some sort of flexible Three Stooges act.
Click to expand...

Based on the "Liberal" definition of neocon, JFK too would meet that criterea.
 
Re: Hey Truth Detector, there just one line of truth

Lerxst said:
Yeah, you just tell yourself your the popular girl. :rofl

You should not worry about the waders and worry about the fact your getting your clock cleaned in this debate. Again.
Click to expand...

This would be another of those "because you say so" but as is typical of you; nothing based on reality or fact or that this opinion is based on your extreme hyper partisan Liberal biases.

There is NO debate as to Powell's political position based on his support for a big Government control Liberal.

What is amusing about this debate is that it is the Liberals in the media attempting to define what Conservatism is and suggest that Conservatives need to be more like THEM in order to obtain political power. I don't expect you to comprehend the irony in such arguments.
 
hazlnut said:
Great post earlier--BTW.

I would like to interject here, in terms of calling people/things by what they really are:

Rush Limbaugh is a college drop-out who found a niche in talk radio during the Clinton years. He is not a social conservative. He is a performer who plays a social conservative on the radio.

I do not believe that he actually believes (or understands) half the things he says. The arguments are way too thin and unoriginal, the rhetoric too comically extreme (just like the Sam Raimi movie I saw this weekend).

Rush, like Ann Coulter, found a niche and they both put on a performance, memorizing lines, coming up with catch phrases like SNL, selling their merchandise. What they do is very similar to professional wrestling, it's all staged and choreographed.

The biggest joke was earlier in the year when Rush 'challenged' President Obama to an economics debate. A college drop-out wanted to debate a Harvard Law graduate. Talk about delusions of grandeur.:roll:

IMO.
Click to expand...

Have you read any of Rush's or Coulters books? Of course you haven't. If you had, you wouldn't make such hyperbolic uninformed comments.

I find it amusing that Liberals who hate anyone who doesn't agree with their politically correct yet uniformed notions about economic and foreign policy make these farcical claims.

But let me assure you as to why Liberals are always so wrong, particularly when it comes to Anne and Rush, they absolutely believe in what they say and can clearly state why they believe what they do.

Your desire to impugn someone like Rush as a drop out are trite and amusing and typical with the hate everything non-Liberal crowd, but as for substance, and as usual, typically lacking.

What is apparent that rather than listening to what these people have to say, you allow OTHERS to do your thinking for you by parroting the typical bumper sticker talking points rather than THINK for yourself.

How easy it is to be a Liberal; you only have to SAY that you care and FEEL others pain while denigrating those you disagree with using the Liberal hyperbole and innuendo talking points calling out others as unthinking Rushbots.

Trust me when I type this, the ones who are unthinking BOTS are people like you who trot out your empty talking points trying to impugn people merely because you happen to NOT agree with their political view rather than support/defend your political views to theirs with coherent substantive arguments.

I am still waiting to hear a coherent argument from Liberals that would suggest that $1.8 trillion deficits and no tax increases (which they loved to argue for during Bush’s Presidency) are somehow a GOOD thing. I want to know why you railed about Bush’s spending but now think that Government spending us into a $1.8 trillion with more on the way is a GOOD thing. I want to know why you don’t rail about the need to INCREASE taxes as you did when Bush was cutting them given the fact that Obama has outspent the entire Bush Presidency deficits in a mere 100 days with MORE to come.

I know the answers to these questions; but I am trying to point out the OBVIOUS hypocrisy of Liberal arguments.
 
Truth Detector said:
Have you read any of Rush's or Coulters books? Of course you haven't. If you had, you wouldn't make such hyperbolic uninformed comments.

I find it amusing that Liberals who hate anyone who doesn't agree with their politically correct yet uniformed notions about economic and foreign policy make these farcical claims.

But let me assure you as to why Liberals are always so wrong, particularly when it comes to Anne and Rush, they absolutely believe in what they say and can clearly state why they believe what they do.

Your desire to impugn someone like Rush as a drop out are trite and amusing and typical with the hate everything non-Liberal crowd, but as for substance, and as usual, typically lacking.

What is apparent that rather than listening to what these people have to say, you allow OTHERS to do your thinking for you by parroting the typical bumper sticker talking points rather than THINK for yourself.

How easy it is to be a Liberal; you only have to SAY that you care and FEEL others pain while denigrating those you disagree with using the Liberal hyperbole and innuendo talking points calling out others as unthinking Rushbots.

Trust me when I type this, the ones who are unthinking BOTS are people like you who trot out your empty talking points trying to impugn people merely because you happen to NOT agree with their political view rather than support/defend your political views to theirs with coherent substantive arguments.

I am still waiting to hear a coherent argument from Liberals that would suggest that $1.8 trillion deficits and no tax increases (which they loved to argue for during Bush’s Presidency) are somehow a GOOD thing. I want to know why you railed about Bush’s spending but now think that Government spending us into a $1.8 trillion with more on the way is a GOOD thing. I want to know why you don’t rail about the need to INCREASE taxes as you did when Bush was cutting them given the fact that Obama has outspent the entire Bush Presidency deficits in a mere 100 days with MORE to come.

I know the answers to these questions; but I am trying to point out the OBVIOUS hypocrisy of Liberal arguments.
Click to expand...
I listen to Rush on occasion (for as long as I can stand it) while I'm out running errands. Proving you wrong once again.

I used to think Coulter was just an opportunist who saw a chance to make money off the ignorant, but since Bill Mahr knows her well I believe when he says she really does believe the garbage craps onto paper.

Rush on the other hand, whether he believes it or not doesn't make his crap, truth. Just because an idiot believes stupid crap doesn't make the crap true.
 
Truth Detector said:
Have you read any of Rush's or Coulters books? Of course you haven't. If you had, you wouldn't make such hyperbolic uninformed comments.
Click to expand...

Have you read any books by Liberal authors such as: Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, Frank Rich, etc. ? If not, then you really don't have any room criticizing others for not reading Limbaugh or Coulter books. People on both sides of the political spectrum typically stick to reading books that contain and discuss issues that they agree with. This behavior certainly isn't limited to Liberals.
 
UtahBill said:
must he believe so loudly?
Click to expand...

Who the **** cares?

Rush reminds me of a line from Flip Wilson's preacher character Leroy of the "church of what's happening now"....

A lie is just as good as the truth if you can get people to believe it.
Click to expand...

Why does Rush remind you of that line?

So many of our pundits out there are telling lies, and an oft repeated lie begins to sound like truth, to the ignorant at least. In fact, it is a basic method of propaganda that is aimed directly at the ignorant among us.
And the ignorant vote....
Click to expand...

Rant? Rhetoric? Filler? [insert noun with good connotation here]?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom