Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the second time in a week I heard most of his show today and was amazed to hear him talking about Obama's interview with that editor from New Republic. The One said that he could accomplish so much more if it weren't for the Republicans in Congress who always get taken down by Limbaugh and Fox News when they try to compromise with the Democrats. The One was saying that one man and a few on a TV channel are keeping him from installing many of his desires. He was saying that he could spring it all on us if not for that one man and a few on Fox.
I wonder if Obama knows the definition of the word, compromise. All he knows about it is that you compromise by giving in to him. He never thinks that both sides make their claims and then each gives some things and then you have compromise. Poor old The One really does think that he is already the dictator.
Does anyone really think that {R} leaders listen to Rush? why would they? Rush does two things talks about how great he is and slams {D}s, what kind of wisdom would the leaders get from that? There is rarely any kind of intellectual content from listening to Rush and if you listen to much your brain would turn in to pudding.
Last edited by Swingblade; 01-29-2013 at 03:32 AM..
I'm not a great fan of conservative talk radio, but I try to listen enough to catch the drift of the thinking within a broad spectrum which, taken altogether, still is almost as large as the Democrats -- and could easily close ranks if the right issue turns up.
Limbaugh abandoned many of his most vitriolic characterizations of radical feminism a long time ago. And one of the observations which has been making the rounds is that, whatever Obama's faults, he apparanently has a stable marriage and isn't likely to succumb to the tackiness that scarred Clinton's presidency.
But the single point that still unites most people who hold to conservative values is that the metamorphasis of the Democratic Party into a melange of single-issue constituencies, many with roots in the campus radicalism that began in the late Sixties continues unabated. And that the continued discard of legal principle and precedent in favor of "judicial activism" represents a threat to the integrity of the Constitution at a level unseen since the early Thirties.
The current controversy over the Second Amendment represents an example of this, just as Obamacare has for the last four years. And unfortunely, that portion of the conservative mainstream which should offer the most logical defense of individual rights -- one based on principle rather than demonization -- remains seriously fragmented.
There have always been two sides to a debate. That has nothing to do with Rush. People look so foolish in trying to create some boogeyman.
I'm thinking Rush was probably in grade school when Dem Senators were filibustering Civil Rights bills. Was Rush maybe doing sports when the Equal Rights Amendment wouldn't pass?
Obama sounds like a petulant child (as do others here and elsewhere) when they do this.
I'm not a great fan of conservative talk radio, but I try to listen enough to catch the drift of the thinking within a broad spectrum which, taken altogether, still is almost as large as the Democrats -- and could easily close ranks if the right issue turns up.
Limbaugh abandoned many of his most vitriolic characterizations of radical feminism a long time ago. And one of the observations which has been making the rounds is that, whatever Obama's faults, he apparanently has a stable marriage and isn't likely to succumb to the tackiness that scarred Clinton's presidency.
But the single point that still unites most people who hold to conservative values is that the metamorphasis of the Democratic Party into a melange of single-issue constituencies, many with roots in the campus radicalism that began in the late Sixties continues unabated. And that the continued discard of legal principle and precedent in favor of "judicial activism" represents a threat to the integrity of the Constitution at a level unseen since the early Thirties.
The current controversy over the Second Amendment represents an example of this, just as Obamacare has for the last four years. And unfortunely, that portion of the conservative mainstream which should offer the most logical defense of individual rights -- one based on principle rather than demonization -- remains seriously fragmented.
I was with you until your last paragraph.
2nd Amendment zeal is a set of cement overshoes just as surely as is support for corporate personhood on the feet of American conservatism. On the gun issue, most "conservatives" are still living in the 18th century with their heads firmly planted in the sand, pugnaciously oblivious to the havoc easy gun access wreaks on our lives in 2013. The gun issue is one of the few that Obama is on the right side of and Americans are fortunate for that right about now.
(Now before you lefts attack please read whole thing, this is a complement to his intelligence)
Obama takes a issue that everyone can agree needs to be tackled such as health care for those without or keeping guns out of hands of those who are intent to massacre.
But what happens after that is what has us split as a nation.
What comes of the great idea never takes care of the initial problem.
Dems see it as a start, they wish more was done fix the problem.
Reps see it a crack in a door of a issue, and they dont like what they think the end game is.
Example with guns
Problem: keep guns out of the hands of those intent to massacre.
All understand helping the mentally ill and greater background checks and closing loopholes to private sales would help.
What happens instead does little of that but instead restricts or outlaws sale of magizine sizes and sales of certain guns.
Dems see it as not really fixing the problem but its a start. If only the reps would let them tackle the issue. But the NRA stopped them.
Reps see it as not tackling the issue at all but a issue used to open the door to outlawing all guns (2nd amendment).
Obama uses the issue to do what he wanted which is to devide and conquer. Fixing the issue isnt really his goal. Otherwise some sort of logical help for mentally ill, more background checks and requirements for smart gun technoligy would be the discussion so that only the gun owner could use the gun. But those solutions are not talked about much or at all. Instead we get size of magazines and such that do nothing to stop these killings.
Obama great con: dems vs reps for control of the country! Right in front of our faces! Its a shell game! We are looking at the shells without realizing theres no ball under any of the shells!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is this some sort of a trick question?
