Limbaugh's CPAC Speech

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/02/28/video-rush-limbaugh-speech-at-cpac-2009-full-video/

:niceday:

[akhhorus]

Link (http://www.thenextright.com/rick-moran/cpac-agenda-shows-conservatives-still-in-denial)

The theme of this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) should be “Cocooning our way to Irrelevancy” or perhaps “How to lose the next 5 elections in 10 easy steps.”

[AliBabba]

http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/02/28/video-rush-limbaugh-speech-at-cpac-2009-full-video/

:niceday:
is there a point to this? Rush Limbaugh really?

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Link (http://www.thenextright.com/rick-moran/cpac-agenda-shows-conservatives-still-in-denial)

Lol, the friggin title of that website basically says he's gonna have that opinion before hand.... just a poser.

[akhhorus]

Lol, the friggin title of that website basically says he's gonna have that opinion before hand.... just a poser.

You're not reading the article obviously, but if you want a contemporary piece:

Link (http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=bded27c9-d385-4f2b-95d7-10ce68712215)

or about Rush:
Link (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/23/00006/)

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

You're not reading the article obviously, but if you want a contemporary piece:

Link (http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=bded27c9-d385-4f2b-95d7-10ce68712215)

All I saw was the Limbaugh speech. I thought it was great. You can see why 30 million flock to the radio everyday.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

or about Rush:
Link (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/23/00006/)

Lol, someone else is'nt gonna tell me what I think. You could find a critical article on anything on the web. Who cares about what some journalist thinks?

[akhhorus]

All I saw was the Limbaugh speech. I thought it was great. You can see why 30 million flock to the radio everyday.

Having nimrods like Limbaugh headline major conferences is exactly what's wrong, and no republicans should listen to him. He only cares about his ratings, not fixing the party. As that Derbyshire piece puts it: "In place of the permanent things, we get Happy Meal conservatism: cheap, childish, familiar. Gone are the internal tensions, the thought-provoking paradoxes, the ideological uneasiness that marked the early Right."

[akhhorus]

Lol, someone else is'nt gonna tell me what I think. You could find a critical article on anything on the web. Who cares about what some journalist thinks?

John Derbyshire isn't some journalist. He's a long time conservative writer and intellectual. Im sorry I dared to try and pop your cocoon though, "good job" with your contributions to the "stellar" work killing the GOP by dumbing it further and further down.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

John Derbyshire isn't some journalist. He's a long time conservative writer and intellectual. Im sorry I dared to try and pop your cocoon though, "good job" with your contributions to the "stellar" work killing the GOP by dumbing it further and further down.

:moon1:

[CNYSkinFan]

All I saw was the Limbaugh speech. I thought it was great. You can see why 30 million flock to the radio everyday.
Flock is a correct term for sheep

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Flock is a correct term for sheep

I knew youd love this booger.

[CNYSkinFan]

Lol, someone else is'nt gonna tell me what I think. You could find a critical article on anything on the web. Who cares about what some journalist thinks?
I have yet to see evidence to back up the statement that you think

[Fathead]

The pubs seem as lost now as the dems were in 02.

[CNYSkinFan]

I knew youd love this booger.
thank you for proving my previous post

[akhhorus]

:moon1:

Like Derbyshire said: "Happy Meal conservatism: cheap, childish."

[CNYSkinFan]

The pubs seem as lost now as the dems were in 02.
worse I think. We at least had Bush to run against who made every colossal bad move someone could make. I don't think Obama will make the same drastic mistakes.

[akhhorus]

The pubs seem as lost now as the dems were in 02.

The dems knew they were lost, I know some republicans who think that all is well as Rome burns around them.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

worse I think. We at least had Bush to run against who made every colossal bad move someone could make. I don't think Obama will make the same drastic mistakes.

Lol, he's basically a poor man's Bush... just as bad with worse foreign policy. Spending more while bending the country over for a big one.

[Fathead]

The dems knew they were lost, I know some republicans who think that all is well as Rome burns around them.



Pretty much. I'm surrounded by these people.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

By the time '12 hits we'll just be a giant version of California.

[AliBabba]

At this time shouldn't listening to Rush Limbaugh be one of those secrets you don't tell anyone. Like watching daytime soaps or reading the Hannah Montana book?

[CNYSkinFan]

Lol, he's basically a poor man's Bush... just as bad with worse foreign policy. Spending more while bending the country over for a big one.
Seriously...Akh, Dave...are you punking us with another account? I want an IP check. This guy makes I LOVE BUSH look like an intelligent poster

[CNYSkinFan]

At this time shouldn't listening to Rush Limbaugh be one of those secrets you don't tell anyone. Like watching daytime soaps or reading the Hannah Montana book?
Hannah Montana has a book? Man I am glad my daughter is too old for that.

[AliBabba]

Hannah Montana has a book? Man I am glad my daughter is too old for that.
How would I know, I'm not reading it .... back off man!

[akhhorus]

By the time '12 hits we'll just be a giant version of California.

If the American people believe what you think, the Dems won't get that chance(we'll take back congress in 2010). And just kneejerk opposing a popular president through a crisis without any alternatives is exactly what the Dems did in 2002, which led to more electoral problems for them. Also, another issue no one wants to talk about is demographic problems for the GOP election wise. Its going to take MAJOR screwups by the left to overcome that.

[Fathead]

Hannah Montana has a book? Man I am glad my daughter is too old for that.

I'm sure your Hannah Montana shrine is only slightly smaller than the Lumsden shrine.....

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Seriously...Akh, Dave...are you punking us with another account? I want an IP check. This guy makes I LOVE BUSH look like an intelligent poster

Let's cut defense spending and use the money to save field mice, research grapes, and control animal odors. While we're at it let's become energy independent with friggin solar panels and wind turbines... no need to drill offshore or go nuclear, lol.

[akhhorus]

I'm sure your Hannah Montana shrine is only slightly smaller than the Lumsden shrine.....

"Mylie? You should be honored, this is the same duct tape that The Great Lumsden had wrapped around his mouth and wrists..." lmao

[Fathead]

Wow, are you for real? I mean, you could be my mother in law, but she still believes the internet is a series of tubes.

[AliBabba]

Let's cut defense spending and use the money to save field mice, research grapes, and control animal odors. While we're at it let's become energy independent with friggin solar panels and wind turbines... no need to drill offshore or go nuclear, lol.
flip back a couple pages in your Rush Limbaugh talking points packet ... you can't just dive into the middle right away. Start at the beginning: "Bill Clinton is the devil"

[akhhorus]

Let's cut defense spending and use the money to save field mice, research grapes, and control animal odors.

That field mouse accusation was BS.

While we're at it let's become energy independent with friggin solar panels and wind turbines... no need to drill offshore or go nuclear, lol.

The problem with offshore drilling is that there's not enough oil there to make an impact. The problem with nuclear energy is the cost. You would need about 100 nuke plants(which take years to build) at the cost of about 15-20 billion a pop.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

That field mouse accusation was BS.



The problem with offshore drilling is that there's no enough oil there to make an impact. The problem with nuclear energy is the cost. You would need about 100 nuke plants(which take years to build) at the cost of about 15-20 billion a pop.

The field mouse just was'nt proven b/c it was'nt clearly defined as that. But the insiders know.

France did it, are you sayin we can't? Also tell me how the solar and wind rhetoric is worth a flyin jelly bean.

[Fathead]

lol yeah, France built 34 reactors in the 70s and 80s out of the 59 they have. And they had a population willing to do it. And their energy needs are not even close to what we have.

[akhhorus]

The field mouse just was'nt proven b/c it was'nt clearly defined as that. But the insiders know.

The field mouse program accusation was a bald faced lie. And the insiders know that. A gop staffer destroyed his career over that one.

France did it, are you sayin we can't? Also tell me how the solar and wind rhetoric is worth a flyin jelly bean.

France taxed the hell out of their people and started decades ago to pay for it. And they have a population 1/3 of ours and a much smaller land area to lay down power transmission lines on. Florida wants to build a new nuke plant to get rid of some older power sources, but the costs are insanity: 15-20 billion.

There's a lot of potential in solar and wind, but its not enough to be a bedrock power source yet(the technology isn't there). What they should focus on(and there's a lot of money for the states in the stim package for this) is efficiency: wind turbines for the windiest areas of the country to generate local power and solar panels for public buildings to cut down their power usage. The estimates for savings for the states make this a no-brainer.

Any power production upgrades are moot, btw, without new transmission lines to make transfer more efficient. There's some cash in the stim package for this also.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

France taxed the hell out of their people and started decades ago to pay for it. And they have a population 1/3 of our and a much smaller land area to lay down power transmission lines on. Florida wants to build a new nuke plant to get rid of some older power sources, but the costs are insanity: 15-20 billion.

What would that make the costs of BO's spending more in a month than the country has in it's history?

With what they'll waste in U.S. automakers before its done we couldve gone nuclear.

[Fathead]

Both sides should have been building nuclear plants since 70s. Maybe not as aggressively as France did, but both sides dropped the ball on it.


I've been looking into solar panels on my house. The start up cost sucks, but the fact that I can sell power back into the system makes it look nice, plus the value increase in the house is pretty good.

[akhhorus]

What would that make the costs of BO's spending more in a month than the country has in it's history?

Obama's spent 800 billion(maybe 1.1 trillion with the other plans that haven't been finalized yet), and the US has been running a budget in the trillions for decades. So you're badly factually wrong.

With what they'll waste in U.S. automakers before its done we couldve gone nuclear.

With what we've given the automakers, we could have bought 2-3 Nuke plants. So, we power up south florida. Brilliant /sarcasm.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

With what we've given the automakers, we could have bought 2-3 Nuke plants. So, we power up south florida. Brilliant /sarcasm.

They'll, not they've. Brilliant/sarcasm

[akhhorus]

They'll, not they've. Brilliant/sarcasm

Aid has been given to the automakers for years. Chrysler was bailed out in the 70s(and restructured during the 80s). If you total up all the money used to help bail the big 3 out over the years, you still wouldn't be able to pay for anywhere near enough nuke plants. Which was your point, no? Even with the potential bailouts coming for the Big 3, you're still not giving them enough cash to fund anything close to your nuclear dreams. You'll need trillions to pay for that, not billions.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Aid has been given to the automakers for years. Chrysler was bailed out in the 70s(and restructured during the 80s). If you total up all the money used to help bail the big 3 out over the years, you still wouldn't be able to pay for anywhere near enough nuke plants. Which was your point, no? Even with the potential bailouts coming for the Big 3, you're still not giving them enough cash to fund anything close to your nuclear dreams. You'll need trillions to pay for that, not billions.

Will it be dead money? Will it not create $$/jobs? Do you need a bunch of employees to fuel the sun or spin the turbines?

[akhhorus]

Will it be dead money?

Thats not the point. You were comparing amounts. Nothing more.

Will it not create $$/jobs?

So, you're advocating massive spending now?

Do you need a bunch of employees to fuel the sun or spin the turbines?

Take your pills please.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

So, you're advocating massive spending now?
.

If it somewhat made sense I could be persuaded.

[CNYSkinFan]

If it somewhat made sense I could be persuaded.
but only if Rush says it first

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

but only if Rush says it first

Or my new buddy in my sig.

[CNYSkinFan]

oh good god Alan Keyes....jesus he makes Ron Paul look sane

[Fathead]

holy lol Alan Keyes



lol

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

oh good god Alan Keyes....jesus he makes Ron Paul look sane

LMAO, I thought you guys would love that. Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and Dodd make him look to be a pure genius tho.

[CNYSkinFan]

LMAO, I thought you guys would love that.
if by Love you mean throw up in my mouth...then yes. I love him.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

if by Love you mean throw up in my mouth...then yes. I love him.

Maybe that should be your avatar after the finals? Keyes with a heart drawn around his head...lol

[akhhorus]

LMAO, I thought you guys would love that. Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and Dodd make him look to be a pure genius tho.

Alan Keyes effectively commits treason and he still looks good compared to those idiots in your eyes? Wow.

If it somewhat made sense I could be persuaded.

Then you have no business complaining about Obama's spending.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Who can blame this guy? Rush Limbaugh sure seems to be the leader of the conservative movement. Look at the size of his flock.:) From the bit I saw, the folks at CPAC would hardly let him say 10 words at a time before they burst out in standing ovations.

I don't see how intelligent conservatives are going to be able to wrestle control of the Republican party back from these people. There are simply too many of them, and they've come to believe all sorts of nonsense that happened to benefit the right in the short term. It will put the next Republican candidate in a precarious position.

[RedskinsDave]

Alan Keyes effectively commits treason and he still looks good compared to those idiots in your eyes? Wow.

Treason? Seriously?

[akhhorus]

Treason? Seriously?

He called for America to "stop Obama now" or the country will be destroyed and for the military to refuse any orders issued by him because he's not really the President(because he's not a real american citizen in his mind).

And yes, anytime some hippie said that about Bush is treasonous also.

[CNYSkinFan]

He called for America to "stop Obama now" or the country will be destroyed and for the military to refuse any orders issued by him because he's not really the President(because he's not a real american citizen in his mind).

And yes, anytime some hippie said that about Bush is treasonous also.
even the most high hippie never came up with "He's not a real citizen" crap

[BigCountry]

Ugh, every time I see a Rush Limbaugh thread and it turns out no harm has come to him I'm always bitterly disappointed. I'm sure they have radio stations in hell.

[RedskinsDave]

even the most high hippie never came up with "He's not a real citizen" crap

Oh, their stuff was on that level though.

[akhhorus]

Oh, their stuff was on that level though.

There was some of that crap from the left from the Florida mess to September 10th, and after the Iraq war became a mess. Nothing like the Keyes rant though lol.

[akhhorus]

Rod Dreher's take down of CPAC:

Link (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/03/cpac-white-kids-on-dope.html)

Do they really believe politics is dogmatic religion? They must. And if so, they're hopeless. Can you imagine going to such a liberal gathering in 1985, after Fritz Mondale had his head handed to him by Ronald Reagan, and listening to the de facto leader of US liberalism talking this way, saying that, "LIberalism is what it is and it is forever. It's not something you can bend and shape and flake and form"? If you were a conservative, you would have chortled and taken comfort in the evidence that the opposition was going to be spending a lot more time in the woods before the light of reality dawned upon their furrowed faces.

Amen.

[RedskinsDave]

They just ran a liberal in McCain. Clearly it's not at the level that's being purported.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Who can blame this guy? Rush Limbaugh sure seems to be the leader of the conservative movement.

lol when I said this I didn't realize there was a direct subordinate relationship between Limbaugh and Steele.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19517.html

Steele told CNN host D.L. Hughley in an interview aired Saturday night: “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly.”

Steele, who won a hard-fought chairman's race on Jan. 30, told Politico he telephoned Limbaugh after his show on Monday afternoon and hoped that they would connect soon.

“I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not."

“I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.”


Steele wasn't trying to slam him, he was were merely calling Limbaugh ugly and incendiary. Clearly there has been a misunderstanding.:)

To have to tuck your tail between your legs and kiss Limbaugh's ring like that-I feel sorry for the guy. Steele truely believed he was in a leadership position for a few weeks there.

[fent]

unbelievable...it's folks like those cheering at CPAC and the thread creator that make me not miss working on the hill at all.

[fpickering]

Having nimrods like Limbaugh headline major conferences is exactly what's wrong, and no republicans should listen to him. He only cares about his ratings, not fixing the party. As that Derbyshire piece puts it: "In place of the permanent things, we get Happy Meal conservatism: cheap, childish, familiar. Gone are the internal tensions, the thought-provoking paradoxes, the ideological uneasiness that marked the early Right."

Aside from the casual manner in which he presented and the numerous references to it being his first national address, I enjoyed his speech.

He communicated the Conservative message very clearly and being a Conservative that is very much needed right now.

[CNYSkinFan]

Aside from the casual manner in which he presented and the numerous references to it being his first national address, I enjoyed his speech.

He communicated the Conservative message very clearly and being a Conservative that is very much needed right now.
i still love that he got the constitution wrong confusing it with th Declaration of Independence (and geting that wrong too).

Ditto Rush I'm wit ya!!! Git er done!!!

[fpickering]

Flock is a correct term for sheep


and yet, the greatest example of all time of people being sheeple just occurred in the last presidential election.

[CNYSkinFan]

and yet, the greatest example of all time of people being sheeple just occurred in the last presidential election.
yep...didn't think you could defend your idol's blatent disregard for the documents he claims to know so well and hold so dear.

[fpickering]

worse I think. We at least had Bush to run against who made every colossal bad move someone could make. I don't think Obama will make the same drastic mistakes.

Obama already has made drastic mistakes! What world are you living in?

Have you been following the stock market? Main street USA has no confidence in Obama's economic plans and his so called stimulus package.
Jim Cramer who is apparently a liberal democrat says that we are witnessing the greatest wealth destruction EVER! EVER!

Declaring the closure of Gitmo without a viable plan was brilliant too.

Appointing numerous tax cheats to positions within his cabinet was not a mistake either.

...and don't get me started on all of the lies that Obama has already told.

Where is the outrage? You know, the outrage that I had to sit and listen to for years levied against President Bush for lying?

[fpickering]

Alan Keyes effectively commits treason

How did he do this exactly?

[fpickering]

Who can blame this guy? Rush Limbaugh sure seems to be the leader of the conservative movement. Look at the size of his flock.:) From the bit I saw, the folks at CPAC would hardly let him say 10 words at a time before they burst out in standing ovations.


so you only watched a portion of the speech?

how then are you able to comment within this thread with such conviction being that the thread title is "Limbaugh's CPAC Speech".

[fpickering]

unbelievable...it's folks like those cheering at CPAC and the thread creator that make me not miss working on the hill at all.

I know unbelievable! Who would want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be?

What madman would proclaim to be a champion of individual rights not the collective?

What kind of psycho would champion the removal of onerous taxes, regulations and too much government?

I want to know how crazy one has to be to say that they love and revere our founding documents?

Clearly Rush is deranged. He had the nerve to say that he opposes the unfair and massive transfer of wealth from those who earn it to those who do not.

[fpickering]

i still love that he got the constitution wrong confusing it with th Declaration of Independence (and geting that wrong too).

Ditto Rush I'm wit ya!!! Git er done!!!

Yeah, he made a few errors. Obama said that we had 57 states and he is our President. What's your point?

Are you going to comment on the actual content of the speech?

[BurgundyNGold]

I know unbelievable! Who would want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be?

What madman would proclaim to be a champion of individual rights not the collective?

What kind of psycho would champion the removal of onerous taxes, regulations and too much government?

I want to know how crazy one has to be to say that they love and revere our founding documents?

Clearly Rush is deranged. He had the nerve to say that he opposes the unfair and massive transfer of wealth from those who earn it to those who do not.
Where was his faux outrage over the past 8 years when Bush was creating the largest increase in government size, spending and debt in the history of the country?

Face it, the guy is a second rate political mind and a first rate attention hound.

[fpickering]

yep...didn't think you could defend your idol's blatent disregard for the documents he claims to know so well and hold so dear.

yep...didn't think you could defend the behavior of the drones that voted for the candidate that they claim to know so well and hold so dear.

[fpickering]

Where was his faux outrage over the past 8 years when Bush was creating the largest increase in government size, spending and debt in the history of the country?

Face it, the guy is a second rate political mind and a first rate attention hound.

There was outrage coming from Conservatives like myself and it was real. I was pissed at Bush for his outrageous spending and expansion of the government while not enforcing our immigration laws.

However, the question still stands, where is the outrage over the lies?
It's interesting how selective this outrage appears to be.

[BurgundyNGold]

There was outrage coming from Conservatives like myself and it was real. I was pissed at Bush for his outrageous spending and expansion of the government while not enforcing our immigration laws.

However, the question still stands, where is the outrage over the lies?
It's interesting how selective this outrage appears to be.
You didn't answer my question about Limbaugh. Where was his outrage about runaway spending and fiscal conservatism, over the past 8 years? Why was he not on the nightly news addressing a CPAC conference, wagging his finger at Bush?

And, so I can address your question, to what lies are you referring?

[fent]

I know unbelievable! Who would want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be?

What madman would proclaim to be a champion of individual rights not the collective?

What kind of psycho would champion the removal of onerous taxes, regulations and too much government?

I want to know how crazy one has to be to say that they love and revere our founding documents?

Clearly Rush is deranged. He had the nerve to say that he opposes the unfair and massive transfer of wealth from those who earn it to those who do not.

if limbaugh actually agreed with those things without being a vindictive, slimy, SOB, then you'd have a point. in reality, there's not a single issue that he discusses that he's intellectually honest about. the man cannot go 5 minute without at least bending the truth. rush is a major part of the problem with politics today, not a part of the solution.

and before you try to label me a nutjob liberal, i spent 5 years working on capitol hill for Tom DeLay and John Carter, 2 of the most conservative members of congress.

[RedskinsDave]

This is the same man who called on Republicans to vote for Obama after McCain was chosen as the candidate, yes? Of course he didn't stand his ground though. He's a whore and doesn't lead anyone.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Obama already has made drastic mistakes! What world are you living in?

Have you been following the stock market?

I sure have. I followed the stock market when the DOW went down 6000 points in Bush's last year and a half. Also followed it when predictably enough, that trend did no stop the second Obama took the oath of office. A lot of Republicans seem to think he's the messiah, they say it all the time, but history tells us that the economy doesn't pivot on a dime.

Where was your argument when the DOW plunged 6000 points under Dubya? I don't recal the Wall Street Journal editorial page pretending every negative blip was due to Dubya as they are now for Obama.

Republicans don't have a leg to stand on in this debate.

Main street USA has no confidence in Obama's economic plans and his so called stimulus package.


Wrong. While I'm sure that appears to be the case inside your Republican bubble, fact is, Obama has very good approval ratings (68%) and 64% approve of his stimulus plan.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1086a2ObamaatOneMonth.pdf

[Ibleedburgundy]

Where is the outrage? You know, the outrage that I had to sit and listen to for years levied against President Bush for lying?

This pretty much explains your entire thought process. I don't think you realize the implications here.

[BurgundyNGold]

Wrong. While I'm sure that appears to be the case inside your Republican bubble, fact is, Obama has very good approval ratings (68%) and 64% approve of his stimulus plan.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1086a2ObamaatOneMonth.pdf
I think Americans like Obama but many are highly suspect of that "stimulus" package. They're just willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt -- a level of trust Bush forfeited long ago.

[RedskinsDave]

Yeah, I don't know anyone who has much confidence in the stimulus.

[akhhorus]

Aside from the casual manner in which he presented and the numerous references to it being his first national address, I enjoyed his speech.

He communicated the Conservative message very clearly and being a Conservative that is very much needed right now.

Imagine if the Dems got hammered in the 2008 elections by a Presidential candidate who was a true movement conservative and lost 6-7 senate seats. And their reaction to that pasting was to have Keith Olbermann thunder away about how liberalism is exactly what the people truly want now(despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary)? That level of pathetic is how bad Limbaugh sounds now.

And the for record: limbaugh only cares about one thing, himself. Nothing else. If we tie ourselves to him, we all get slimed the next time Limbaugh says something like how Michael J Fox is making up his symptoms.

[fpickering]

You didn't answer my question about Limbaugh. Where was his outrage about runaway spending and fiscal conservatism, over the past 8 years? Why was he not on the nightly news addressing a CPAC conference, wagging his finger at Bush?

And, so I can address your question, to what lies are you referring?

I don't listen to his show and I can't say that he did not express outrage.
If he did not then I am certainly not in favor of that behavior but lets not talk about the past, lets focus on the present and future.

Regarding the Lies. There are many but I will bring up a couple just to keep the conversation focused.

1. The stimulus bill contains no earmarks or pet projects.
2. His promise that he would not fill his cabinet with lobbyists.

[akhhorus]

I don't listen to his show and I can't say that he did not express outrage.
If he did not then I am certainly not in favor of that behavior but lets not talk about the past, lets focus on the present and future.

Regarding the Lies. There are many but I will bring up a couple just to keep the conversation focused.

1. The stimulus bill contains no earmarks or pet projects.
2. His promise that he would not fill his cabinet with lobbyists.

For the 10th time: there were no earmarks in the stimulus package. And which lobbyists are you referring to? There's one in an undersecretary position at DOD that I know of.

[fpickering]

if limbaugh actually agreed with those things without being a vindictive, slimy, SOB, then you'd have a point. in reality, there's not a single issue that he discusses that he's intellectually honest about. the man cannot go 5 minute without at least bending the truth. rush is a major part of the problem with politics today, not a part of the solution.

and before you try to label me a nutjob liberal, i spent 5 years working on capitol hill for Tom DeLay and John Carter, 2 of the most conservative members of congress.

His demeanor is largely irrelevant to this discussion although I admit, I am not the biggest fan of his delivery. What is pertinent and what I focus on is the message that he is delivering not the method in which he chooses to deliver it.

I would not agree with your assertion that there is not a single issue that he discusses that he is intellectually honest about. The points that I raised previously regarding the principles of Conservatism that he communicated are at the very core, ideals that I as a Conservative hold dear.

[fpickering]

I sure have. I followed the stock market when the DOW went down 6000 points in Bush's last year and a half. Also followed it when predictably enough, that trend did no stop the second Obama took the oath of office. A lot of Republicans seem to think he's the messiah, they say it all the time, but history tells us that the economy doesn't pivot on a dime.

Where was your argument when the DOW plunged 6000 points under Dubya? I don't recal the Wall Street Journal editorial page pretending every negative blip was due to Dubya as they are now for Obama.

Republicans don't have a leg to stand on in this debate.



Wrong. While I'm sure that appears to be the case inside your Republican bubble, fact is, Obama has very good approval ratings (68%) and 64% approve of his stimulus plan.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1086a2ObamaatOneMonth.pdf


I am not a Republican. I am a Conservative. I was vehemently against Bush's irresponsible spending, the expansion of government during his administration and the reluctance to do the will of the people and enforce immigration laws.

I also was against TARP. I favored free market principles even if that meant that these irresponsible and failing companies failed. The bottom line is that they did not exercise the most fundamental fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and took risks that were so ridiculous that they deserved to fail. I don't believe propping up companies with broken business models is a sound strategy. I heard today that Freddie Mac is asking for more money. GM, despite the stimulus money is still failing as well. How is that working out for the American Taxpayer?


Regardless of Obama's approval ratings, his economic policy in the short term has been a disaster and will prove to be very detrimental to our Country in the long term.

[fpickering]

This pretty much explains your entire thought process. I don't think you realize the implications here.

OK, but where is the outrage? You know, the outrage that I had to sit and listen to for years levied against President Bush for lying?

[fpickering]

Imagine if the Dems got hammered in the 2008 elections by a Presidential candidate who was a true movement conservative and lost 6-7 senate seats. And their reaction to that pasting was to have Keith Olbermann thunder away about how liberalism is exactly what the people truly want now(despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary)? That level of pathetic is how bad Limbaugh sounds now.

And the for record: limbaugh only cares about one thing, himself. Nothing else. If we tie ourselves to him, we all get slimed the next time Limbaugh says something like how Michael J Fox is making up his symptoms.

What empirical evidence do you have that the people do not want the following:

For every American to be the best he or she chooses to be.

To preserve individual rights not the collective.

To advocate the removal of onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.

To love and revere our founding documents.

To oppose the unfair and massive transfer of wealth from those who earn it to those who do not.



Keep in mind that the 8 years of Bush bore little to no resemblance to Conservative values. This is a gross untruth perpetuated by the media and parroted by liberals.

[fpickering]

For the 10th time: there were no earmarks in the stimulus package. And which lobbyists are you referring to? There's one in an undersecretary position at DOD that I know of.

For the 10th time, there are tons of pet projects in the stimulus bill. Stop trying to cherry pick the argument.


Lobbyists -

Mominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon.

Nominee for deputy secretary of health and human services, William V. Corr, lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

[akhhorus]

For the 10th time, there are tons of pet projects in the stimulus bill. Stop trying to cherry pick the argument.


Lobbyists -

Mominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon.

Nominee for deputy secretary of health and human services, William V. Corr, lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

You said Earmarks and pet projects. Stop trying to claw back. And you still haven't proven that obama thinks that they're pet projects.

And 2 undersecretaries...thats not exactly "filling the cabinet," no?

What empirical evidence do you have that the people do not want the following:

For every American to be the best he or she chooses to be.

To preserve individual rights not the collective.

To advocate the removal of onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.

To love and revere our founding documents.

To oppose the unfair and massive transfer of wealth from those who earn it to those who do not.

Keep in mind that the 8 years of Bush bore little to no resemblance to Conservative values. This is a gross untruth perpetuated by the media and parroted by liberals.

1. The Americans voted for the biggest liberal ever to run for President in the last 40 years.
2. And the Dems won a huge amounts of congressional seats(Senate and houses) for the 2nd straight election(which almost never happens).
3. Since when does being a liberal means that you hate our founding documents. Im no liberal, but this is a moronic cheapshot.
4.The American people were clearly pissed after seeing what total deregulation of the financial industry got them.

[Ibleedburgundy]

OK, but where is the outrage? You know, the outrage that I had to sit and listen to for years levied against President Bush for lying?

I don't agree that Obama lied. You started with 10, not you're down to two. And those two are pretty weak.

As far as Bush's lie goes, I don't think it was the lying itself that people ultimately cared about. It's what resulted from the lie.

But I think you still are missing the implication about when you say stuff like this. You indicated that you resented having to sit through criticism of Bush (even though, oddly enough, you claim to not be a Republican. If you're not a Republican, why would you care?). Criticism of Bush wouldn't be relevant unless you were interested in payback. Since your opinion is at least partially motivated by payback, it's precisely that much less based on current events. In other words, you already (partially) made your mind up about Obama before he even did anything. It proves you are not thinking 100% objectively (not saying I do, but it's a mistake to prove it unnecessarily). It actually weakens your position and calls into question the validity of your opinion.

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't listen to his show and I can't say that he did not express outrage.
If he did not then I am certainly not in favor of that behavior but lets not talk about the past, lets focus on the present and future.
You can't just brush away the past. That's how you're able to establish a pattern of one's character or, in Limbaugh's case, lack thereof. He's a hypocrite and an opportunist. The GOP could do no worse than to have him as their ideological messiah and annointed mouthpiece. OK, well, maybe David Duke.

Regarding the Lies. There are many but I will bring up a couple just to keep the conversation focused.

1. The stimulus bill contains no earmarks or pet projects.
The stimulus bill contains no earmarks. It does, however, contain billions in pet project spending for lawmakers on BOTH sides of the aisle. I can almost forgive that as necessary horse trading to get his stimulus package passed.

However, the $410B supplemental spending bill has 9,000 earmarks and billions more in pet projects. Obama should veto that, but he won't, which is disappointing from a "change" candidate.

2. His promise that he would not fill his cabinet with lobbyists.
I agree, that is disconcerting. However, it does seem that Obama is gearing up for a fight with the lobbyists. We'll have to see how much of that is reality and how much is theater.

[fpickering]

You said Earmarks and pet projects. Stop trying to claw back. And you still haven't proven that obama thinks that they're pet projects.



Let's start from step one just to ensure that your attempts to obfuscate the argument are foiled and then let's just let the other posters on this board decide.

1. Obama said that there are no earmarks or pet projects in the "stimulus" bill.

2. Scores and scores of pet projects within said "stimulus" bill have been discovered and well documented.

3. One of the following is true, none of which cast a good light on Obama:

A. Obama lied to all of us.
B. Obama is out of touch with Main Street America because he does not consider the projects in the bill that have nothing to do with stimulating our economy to be pet projects.
C. He did not know that the pet projects were in the bill.

I assume Obama is a smart and well informed man so that rules out C. As cool and mainstream the media makes him out to be, he must also be in touch with Main Street America, so scratch B. The only remaining answer is A, that he lied.



And 2 undersecretaries...thats not exactly "filling the cabinet," no?


Whoops. Filling the cabinet were my words. Let's use Obama's.

He promised during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House."

Uh oh. Except that there were dozens. Once called on this he said that he had earlier issued a more specific policy on former lobbyists. Basically he said that executive branch employees will not work in an agency, or on a program, for which they have lobbied in the last two years.

Whoops again because his majesty appointed former Goldman Sachs lobbyists Mark Patterson to be his chief of staff at the Treasury Department. In this position, Mark would oversee his former employer who just so happened to be a recipient of $10 billion in taxpayer funds.
Another violation of his declaration involved former Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn, who he named Deputy Secretary of Defense.





1. The Americans voted for the biggest liberal ever to run for President in the last 40 years.
2. And the Dems won a huge amounts of congressional seats(Senate and houses) for the 2nd straight election(which almost never happens).
3. Since when does being a liberal means that you hate our founding documents. Im no liberal, but this is a moronic cheapshot.
4.The American people were clearly pissed after seeing what total deregulation of the financial industry got them.


1. Big deal. He won 53% to 46% with groups backing him practicing nefarious tactics (ACORN), a media that was totally propping him up if not outright campaigning for him, an old, weak and timid opponent, and a incumbent Republican President who was a disaster.

2. Bush and the Republicans lost the support of their base because they refused to follow Conservative Ideals. This is why they lost the elections in the House and Senate, regardless of what CNN told you.

3. I am confused. Who are you accusing of a moronic cheapshot? Me or Rush? Here was the series of events for new readers:

a. Poster(s) in this thread said that we should not listen to Rush because (I'm paraphrasing) he was a raving lunatic

b. I listed the points that he made in the speech and suggested that they seemed pretty level headed to me. One of which was that we as Conservatives have a love and reverence for our founding documents.

c. You said that people don't want what Rush was selling.

d. I aksed you for the empirical evidence.

e. You responded with your rant above.

By the way, I would say that plenty a liberal does not like our founding documents what with the arguments against what Right to bear arms means, the attempt at violating free speech with the recent talks of re-instituting the fairness doctrine and the activist legislation from the bench that we see. Again, those are just off the top of my head.

4. I have never seen any evidence to support this assertion. You keep blaming deregulation but the widely accepted cause of the meltdown was the risky lending practices undertaken that granted loans to people who just were not adequately qualified to receive them.

[akhhorus]

Let's start from step one just to ensure that your attempts to obfuscate the argument are foiled and then let's just let the other posters on this board decide.

1. Obama said that there are no earmarks or pet projects in the "stimulus" bill.

2. Scores and scores of pet projects within said "stimulus" bill have been discovered and well documented.

3. One of the following is true, none of which cast a good light on Obama:

A. Obama lied to all of us.
B. Obama is out of touch with Main Street America because he does not consider the projects in the bill that have nothing to do with stimulating our economy to be pet projects.
C. He did not know that the pet projects were in the bill.

I assume Obama is a smart and well informed man so that rules out C. As cool and mainstream the media makes him out to be, he must also be in touch with Main Street America, so scratch B. The only remaining answer is A, that he lied.




blah blah blah. You're still accusing someone of something you would need knowledge of their beliefs to know if they were lying or not. Just because you think(or anyone else thinks) that projects are pet projects doesn't mean Obama(or anyone else other than who you have saying so) think that they are.

And you're still clueless about what an earmark is, or you're purposefully lying.

Whoops. Filling the cabinet were my words. Let's use Obama's.

He promised during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House."

Uh oh. Except that there were dozens. Once called on this he said that he had earlier issued a more specific policy on former lobbyists. Basically he said that executive branch employees will not work in an agency, or on a program, for which they have lobbied in the last two years.

Whoops again because his majesty appointed former Goldman Sachs lobbyists Mark Patterson to be his chief of staff at the Treasury Department. In this position, Mark would oversee his former employer who just so happened to be a recipient of $10 billion in taxpayer funds.
Another violation of his declaration involved former Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn, who he named Deputy Secretary of Defense.


Dozens? Sounds like you have 3 at most.


1.. Big deal. He won 53% to 46% with groups backing him practicing nefarious tactics (ACORN), a media that was totally propping him up if not outright campaigning for him, an old, weak and timid opponent, and a incumbent Republican President who was a disaster.

And yet, none of this stopped Bush in 04.

2. Bush and the Republicans lost the support of their base because they refused to follow Conservative Ideals. This is why they lost the elections in the House and Senate, regardless of what CNN told you.

No, its not. If you think this, you're clueless.

3. I am confused. Who are you accusing of a moronic cheapshot? Me or Rush? Here was the series of events for new readers:

a. Poster(s) in this thread said that we should not listen to Rush because (I'm paraphrasing) he was a raving lunatic

b. I listed the points that he made in the speech and suggested that they seemed pretty level headed to me. One of which was that we as Conservatives have a love and reverence for our founding documents.

c. You said that people don't want what Rush was selling.

d. I aksed you for the empirical evidence.

e. You responded with your rant above.

By the way, I would say that plenty a liberal does not like our founding documents what with the arguments against what Right to bear arms means, the attempt at violating free speech with the recent talks of re-instituting the fairness doctrine and the activist legislation from the bench that we see. Again, those are just off the top of my head.


The fairness doctrine was condemned by Obama and blocked in the senate with more than 80 senators voting to block it.
To answer your points:
1-accusing those who disagree with you of hating our founding documents is a moronic cheapshot. Your examples of the first 2 amendments show you have no clue what you're talking about(again).
2-I didn't rant, merely questioned your nonsense(which you're unable to support again).
3-If you think Rush is level headed, you're a fool.

4. I have never seen any evidence to support this assertion.

More willful blindness on your part. If you think that the American people aren't pissed at the banks for what they did, then you're either lying or you're beyond clueless.

You keep blaming deregulation but the widely accepted cause of the meltdown was the risky lending practices undertaken that granted loans to people who just were not adequately qualified to receive them.

No, thats not true at all. I've explained this to you, and you continue to repeat this falsehood. The problem with the banks wasn't subprime mortgages but was Credit Default swaps and being allowed to get leveraged into debt past 30 to 1(credit to assets). I would explain this simple concept to you again, but I doubt you're able to understand it.

[fpickering]

I don't agree that Obama lied. You started with 10, not you're down to two. And those two are pretty weak.


Yes, I listed scores of lies in another thread. In the interest of full disclosure, I retracted one, after realizing that it was not a lie.

How they are weak? Read my previous post and then get back to me. Oh, I almost forgot, I have some more lies:

Obama promised to allow the public to review bills:

"Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." (BarackObama.com campaign Web site)


Yikes. Obama has not stayed true to his word. He signed the SCHIP/cigarette tax hike, the Lily Ledbetter bill, and the "stimulus" bill all with far less than a five-day waiting period that he promised. The details of the bills were not posted on the White House website for the public to review either.


Obama also promised to enact pork barrel armark reform:

“The system is broken. We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.”

Uh oh. According to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill, contains 8,570 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion, including dozens of wasteful pork-barrel projects.



But I think you still are missing the implication about when you say stuff like this. You indicated that you resented having to sit through criticism of Bush (even though, oddly enough, you claim to not be a Republican. If you're not a Republican, why would you care?). Criticism of Bush wouldn't be relevant unless you were interested in payback. Since your opinion is at least partially motivated by payback, it's precisely that much less based on current events. In other words, you already (partially) made your mind up about Obama before he even did anything. It proves you are not thinking 100% objectively (not saying I do, but it's a mistake to prove it unnecessarily). It actually weakens your position and calls into question the validity of your opinion.

The criticism that Bush lied about Iraq was totally inaccurate and unfair. Further, the circus that ensued following the false allegations perpetuated mostly by liberals and our media acted as a deterrence to our victory in Iraq.

Being that I am a Patriot and want the best for our Country, I resented having to sit through the allegations. That is why I care.

I also care in truth, justice and what is right. It has nothing to do with payback so your assertion to the contrary is off the mark.

[akhhorus]

Being that I am a Patriot and want the best for our Country, I resented having to sit through the allegations. That is why I care.


Oh Christ. You can drop this messianic nonsense. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't love the USA.

[fpickering]

You can't just brush away the past. That's how you're able to establish a pattern of one's character or, in Limbaugh's case, lack thereof. He's a hypocrite and an opportunist. The GOP could do no worse than to have him as their ideological messiah and annointed mouthpiece. OK, well, maybe David Duke.


Like I said, I don't listen to his show and I can't say that he did not express outrage.

Also, I stated that I am not a big fan of his delivery but at this point will take Rush as a spokesman given that we have no Politician who can clearly communicate the Principles of Conservatism.



The stimulus bill contains no earmarks. It does, however, contain billions in pet project spending for lawmakers on BOTH sides of the aisle. I can almost forgive that as necessary horse trading to get his stimulus package passed.

However, the $410B supplemental spending bill has 9,000 earmarks and billions more in pet projects. Obama should veto that, but he won't, which is disappointing from a "change" candidate.


I agree, that is disconcerting. However, it does seem that Obama is gearing up for a fight with the lobbyists. We'll have to see how much of that is reality and how much is theater.

Ok, let's just forget about earmarks as they are only 1/2 of Obama's declaration.

As you pointed out, the stimulus bill contains tons of pet projects. I think that the fact that they come from both sides of the aisle prove that both parties are broken and neither espouse Conservative Principles. I differ from you and do not forgive them. The amount of pork in the bill, especially given the fragile nature of our Economy and the massive size of our debt is nothing short of an absolute abomination!

I agree with everything else you said.

[fpickering]

blah blah blah. You're still accusing someone of something you would need knowledge of their beliefs to know if they were lying or not. Just because you think(or anyone else thinks) that projects are pet projects doesn't mean Obama(or anyone else other than who you have saying so) think that they are.

And you're still clueless about what an earmark is, or you're purposefully lying.


Talk about blah blah blah! Pick one of the three options I presented or feel free to come up with one of your own that makes a modicum of sense. Otherwise, please save us all the headache!

My gosh, man. We've been over this several times. My original declaration that the bill had earmarks when using the most technical definition of the word earmark was proven incorrect by you. Great. Let's not continue to bring up the word earmark. Let's forget it altogether.
Let's focus on the words pet projects for the sake of this discussion.




Dozens? Sounds like you have 3 at most.


Sorry I misspoke. The actual term was "So far, though, at least a dozen" and that was in Jan 2009.

"So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18128.html



And yet, none of this stopped Bush in 04.


This comment bears not a single correlation to what I said.
Bush was not backed by nefarious groups registering voters multiple times, Bush was not supported by the media, and Bush was not weak, old or timid.



No, its not. If you think this, you're clueless.


I suppose it was the great ideas that the Liberals campaigned on, right?
Bush and the Republicans lost the support of their base because they refused to follow Conservative Ideals. (controlled spending, immigration enforcement, small government).
If you disagree then please elaborate.




The fairness doctrine was condemned by Obama and blocked in the senate with more than 80 senators voting to block it.
To answer your points:
1-accusing those who disagree with you of hating our founding documents is a moronic cheapshot. Your examples of the first 2 amendments show you have no clue what you're talking about(again).
2-I didn't rant, merely questioned your nonsense(which you're unable to support again).
3-If you think Rush is level headed, you're a fool.


Not all liberals support the fairness doctrine but many do. Here is the rest of what I wrote since you are cherry picking again:

Plenty a liberal does not like our founding documents what with the arguments against what Right to bear arms means, the attempt at violating free speech with the recent talks of re-instituting the fairness doctrine and the activist legislation from the bench that we see.

Please elaborate on the following:"Your examples of the first 2 amendments show you have no clue what you're talking about(again)."

I would attack the rest of your point but it is without any substance.



More willful blindness on your part. If you think that the America
n people aren't pissed at the banks for what they did, then you're either lying or you're beyond clueless.


No, thats not true at all. I've explained this to you, and you continue to repeat this falsehood. The problem with the banks wasn't subprime mortgages but was Credit Default swaps and being allowed to get leveraged into debt past 30 to 1(credit to assets). I would explain this simple concept to you again, but I doubt you're able to understand it.

Wait, so are you seriously saying that the financial meltdown was NOT ultimately caused by irresponsible lending? Are you freaking serious?
I am going to lay this out very simple for you.

Irresponsible Lending -> Risky Mortgages were packaged and sold -> CDS are sold against these assets -> Foreclosures begin piling up -> Banks investments in Mortgage backed securities are deemed toxic -> Banks liabilities exceed assets -> Banks cannot pay coupon payment -> CDS payoff is triggered.

Without the irresponsible lending the CDS never happens.

[fpickering]

Oh Christ. You can drop this messianic nonsense. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't love the USA.

I did not assert that anywhere. That is a typical knee-jerk liberal reaction.

I am done for the night. Until next time where I look forward to the answer of where the outrage is regarding the POTUS lying.

[akhhorus]

Talk about blah blah blah! Pick one of the three options I presented or feel free to come up with one of your own that makes a modicum of sense. Otherwise, please save us all the headache!

My gosh, man. We've been over this several times. My original declaration that the bill had earmarks when using the most technical definition of the word earmark was proven incorrect by you. Great. Let's not continue to bring up the word earmark. Let's forget it altogether.
Let's focus on the words pet projects for the sake of this discussion.




Let's not discuss the term earmark? then why do you keep bringing it up? And I've answered your moronic point, you just can't retort apparently.


Sorry I misspoke. The actual term was "So far, though, at least a dozen" and that was in Jan 2009.

"So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18128.html



So you're still wrong(I'd like to see names, I follow this pretty closely, and I know of 3). You said dozens. Obama is definitely crabwalking his lobbyist claim, but you're trying to make this story much bigger than it is.

This comment bears not a single correlation to what I said.
Bush was not backed by nefarious groups registering voters multiple times, Bush was not supported by the media, and Bush was not weak, old or timid.


I didn't say Bush was. You pointed this out as your excuse for why Mccain lost. I said that it didn't stop Bush from winning. Acorn and the supposed liberal media isn't powerful enough to tilt any elections.

I suppose it was the great ideas that the Liberals campaigned on, right?
Bush and the Republicans lost the support of their base because they refused to follow Conservative Ideals. (controlled spending, immigration enforcement, small government).
If you disagree then please elaborate.

The republicans lost because they tried to have things both ways: they enabled Bush to do whatever he wanted to do for years without trying to stop him and they cheered on as Bush destroyed any regulation(which led to the economic problems eventually).

Not all liberals support the fairness doctrine but many do. Here is the rest of what I wrote since you are cherry picking again:

I'm not cherry picking, just responding to your nonsense. And thanks for being unable to respond to the facts about the fairness doctrine.

Plenty a liberal does not like our founding documents what with the arguments against what Right to bear arms means, the attempt at violating free speech with the recent talks of re-instituting the fairness doctrine and the activist legislation from the bench that we see.

Please elaborate on the following:"Your examples of the first 2 amendments show you have no clue what you're talking about(again)."


1. Show where liberals are attacking free speech. Considering that a lot of liberals voted to block the fairness doctrine(and no one ever tried to institute the fairness doctrine either btw, yet another thing you're making up), if this is your evidence, you're speaking out your ass.
2. There have been no attempts by anyone to attack the 2nd amendment for decades. If you're going to complain that the Brady bill and assault weapon ban are "attacks on the 2nd amendment" you're talking out of your ass again. Those aren't attacks on the concept of being able to bear arms.
3. "Activist legislation" as you put it is based on the biggest SCOTUS decision ever: Marbury v Madison(if you don't know what this is, please stop talking because this is as simple as it gets for US governance). Congress has never seen fit to try and curtail this, so no one can complain about Judges throwing out laws because they're unconstitional(nevermind that complaining about judges is a BS political spin).

I would attack the rest of your point but it is without any substance.

If I were you, I wouldn't attack since you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Wait, so are you seriously saying that the financial meltdown was NOT ultimately caused by irresponsible lending? Are you freaking serious?
I am going to lay this out very simple for you.

Irresponsible Lending -> Risky Mortgages were packaged and sold -> CDS are sold against these assets -> Foreclosures begin piling up -> Banks investments in Mortgage backed securities are deemed toxic -> Banks liabilities exceed assets -> Banks cannot pay coupon payment -> CDS payoff is triggered.

Without the irresponsible lending the CDS never happens.

And the deregulation at OTS from 2003 on was responsible for handing out those loans. But even if every single one of the subprime loans went bust, it wouldn't have been enough to threaten the banking system. It was the totally unregulated CDS market that did that, since it tied all the banks together.

[akhhorus]

I did not assert that anywhere. That is a typical knee-jerk liberal reaction.

Anytime anyone is claiming that they're a patriot(implying that those who oppose aren't), you're saying that. And its not a knee-jerk reaction or being a liberal, its pointing out when someone is being a self aggrandizing fool, which you are doing.

I am done for the night. Until next time where I look forward to the answer of where the outrage is regarding the POTUS lying.

Point out some lies that aren't you trying to play semantic games.

[hogskins]

Like I said, I don't listen to his show and I can't say that he did not express outrage.

Also, I stated that I am not a big fan of his delivery but at this point will take Rush as a spokesman given that we have no Politician who can clearly communicate the Principles of Conservatism.




Ok, let's just forget about earmarks as they are only 1/2 of Obama's declaration.

As you pointed out, the stimulus bill contains tons of pet projects. I think that the fact that they come from both sides of the aisle prove that both parties are broken and neither espouse Conservative Principles. I differ from you and do not forgive them. The amount of pork in the bill, especially given the fragile nature of our Economy and the massive size of our debt is nothing short of an absolute abomination!

I agree with everything else you said.

Weren't these "Conservative Principles" that you keep talking about clearly communicated by that creepy little kid at the CPAC jamboree? If not, can you point to where they are codified (sorry if you mentioned this in an earlier post...)

Also, who do you believe last practiced these pronciples while in office?

[fpickering]

Let's not discuss the term earmark? then why do you keep bringing it up? And I've answered your moronic point, you just can't retort apparently.


Hahaha, I believe that it is clear that you are the one who keeps bringing the earmark discussion up.



So you're still wrong(I'd like to see names, I follow this pretty closely, and I know of 3). You said dozens. Obama is definitely crabwalking his lobbyist claim, but you're trying to make this story much bigger than it is.


I suppose that we should believe you and not politico.com? Really?

I am not making it bigger than it is. Obama made a number of statements that turned out to be lies. I am just dying to know where is the outrage?



I didn't say Bush was. You pointed this out as your excuse for why Mccain lost. I said that it didn't stop Bush from winning. Acorn and the supposed liberal media isn't powerful enough to tilt any elections.


The media was slanted during Bush but they were not practically campaigning for him like they were for Obama.
Acorn was a nonexistent entity during Bush.
Plus, there are way too many other variables here to make the comparison.



The republicans lost because they tried to have things both ways: they enabled Bush to do whatever he wanted to do for years without trying to stop him and they cheered on as Bush destroyed any regulation(which led to the economic problems eventually).


Yes, by "letting him do whatever he wanted" he abandoned any semblance of Conservative values.

99.9% of people would tell you that the economic crisis was caused by the irresponsible lending practices. No one is talking about deregulation.

Again, without the irresponsible lending to people who were not creditworthy, none of this would have happened.



I'm not cherry picking, just responding to your nonsense. And thanks for being unable to respond to the facts about the fairness doctrine.


You are cherry picking. I talked about a number of examples to show that many liberals do not respect our founding documents and you cherry picked one to respond to.

I did respond to your notion about the fairness doctrine.



1. Show where liberals are attacking free speech. Considering that a lot of liberals voted to block the fairness doctrine(and no one ever tried to institute the fairness doctrine either btw, yet another thing you're making up), if this is your evidence, you're speaking out your ass.
2. There have been no attempts by anyone to attack the 2nd amendment for decades. If you're going to complain that the Brady bill and assault weapon ban are "attacks on the 2nd amendment" you're talking out of your ass again. Those aren't attacks on the concept of being able to bear arms.
3. "Activist legislation" as you put it is based on the biggest SCOTUS decision ever: Marbury v Madison(if you don't know what this is, please stop talking because this is as simple as it gets for US governance). Congress has never seen fit to try and curtail this, so no one can complain about Judges throwing out laws because they're unconstitional(nevermind that complaining about judges is a BS political spin).


1. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) defended the Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, "I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?"

Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow supports the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine.

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/11/more-democrats-advocate-fairness.html


2. Obama AG Eric Holder - "No court has ever said that the Second Amendment actually says that. I think, if you look at it, it talks about bearing guns in a well-regulated militia. And I don't think anywhere it talks about an individual."

Holder most recently signed a brief...in the Heller case that "The Second Amendment does not protect firearm possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia."


3. Just to be clear, I consider an activist judge to be one that who misuses, misinterprets or ignores the law and/or legal precedents.
Examples of this:
1995 Colorado state-wide referendum, voters passed Amendment 2, which held that while homosexuals are entitled to full and equal protection under the law, they are not entitled to "special status" under the law. However, a state district judge denied the will of the people and overturned the election results.

In California a federal judge reversed the result of the referendum by which voters passed Proposition 187, which denies expensive social services to illegal aliens

Also, in California a federal judge overruled the vote by which California voters passed Proposition 209 to eliminate "affirmative action" at the University of California.

Missouri- The citizens of Missouri voted down a proposed tax increase, a state Supreme Court ordered that the tax be levied anyway

Texas - A federal judge in San Antonio, Texas, threw out the ballots of the county�s military personnel in order to block a duly elected Republican sheriff and a Republican county commissioner from taking their offices.




If I were you, I wouldn't attack since you don't know what the hell you're talking about.


There is no substance to this assertion.



And the deregulation at OTS from 2003 on was responsible for handing out those loans. But even if every single one of the subprime loans went bust, it wouldn't have been enough to threaten the banking system. It was the totally unregulated CDS market that did that, since it tied all the banks together.

Can you post a link to backup your assertion?

Edit: I just watched Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke on 60 minutes tonight. This is what he said about the financial crisis:

"The first part of the crisis was sub-prime and other assets that were toxic. Now, we're in a second phase which is that the economy is very weak...."

[fpickering]

Anytime anyone is claiming that they're a patriot(implying that those who oppose aren't), you're saying that. And its not a knee-jerk reaction or being a liberal, its pointing out when someone is being a self aggrandizing fool, which you are doing.


Wow, in this short statement you managed to make a gigantic generalization, an even bigger assumption, and an ad hominem attack against me. Well done.




Point out some lies that aren't you trying to play semantic games.


All you have to do is read one of the many posts of mine. You will not find semantic games because after all, they're not my words, they're straight from Obama's lips.

[fpickering]

Weren't these "Conservative Principles" that you keep talking about clearly communicated by that creepy little kid at the CPAC jamboree? If not, can you point to where they are codified (sorry if you mentioned this in an earlier post...)

Also, who do you believe last practiced these pronciples while in office?

Yes, they were also clearly communicated by that highly intelligent child at the CPAC event.

IMO, no one in my lifetime has practiced these principles in their entirety. What are you getting at?

[Ibleedburgundy]

Obama already has made drastic mistakes! What world are you living in?

Have you been following the stock market?

Since you believe the stock market is an immediate, perfectly accurate, direct indicator of whether or not the President is making the correct economic decisions, perhaps you can explain which of Obama's economic policies lead to these recent gains and what exactly makes him such a brilliant and effective manager of the economy.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI

Don't get me wrong. I don't think he deserves credit, but I also didn't think he deserved blame a few weeks ago.

[CNYSkinFan]

dont you know that all recent Wall st gains were because of the "Fudgit" that the republicans put out

[BurgundyNGold]

Since you believe the stock market is an immediate, perfectly accurate, direct indicator of whether or not the President is making the correct economic decisions, perhaps you can explain which of Obama's economic policies lead to these recent gains and what exactly makes him such a brilliant and effective manager of the economy.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI

Don't get me wrong. I don't think he deserves credit, but I also didn't think he deserved blame a few weeks ago.
Very seldom should they POTUS get credit or blame for a bad economy. Bush did his damnedest, though. You could blame him for a lot of this.

dont you know that all recent Wall st gains were because of the "Fudgit" that the republicans put out
Today's bump is because of better than expected economic numbers that point to us getting on the road to recovery this year.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

When things are looking down across our country, this really is a pick me up.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/07/rush-limbaugh-interview-with-greta-van.html

Limbaugh's interview on Van Susteren's show. His awesomeness continues...