Flawed analysis of Rush Limbaugh - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #76 05-08-2008, 05:00 PM

I agree that a conservative person doesn't necessarily want to preserve the status quo. I think that a conservative person favors traditional values and the traditional way of doing things, which is why W is not conservative.

Botnst · #77 05-08-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I am not sure I accept the definition of a conservative as a promoter of the status quo. I know that is a pretty much accepted description, but I don't buy it.

In my world, a conservative is one who favors small government. Also a person inclined to self reliance, as opposed to those rely on government or a "village".
With government spending at unprecedented high levels, and with no prospects if reigning it in, A true Conservative is a basher of that status quo.
With government run ( read liberal control) of education and the disnal state of the "graduates", a Conservative is a basher of that status quo as well.

I could go on, but is it necessary? Have I demonstrated that conservative does not necessarily equal one who wants to preserve the status quo?
Maybe I am a radical conservative?

The people who believe as you are not, and have not been in power for over 150 years. Should by some wonderful circumstance they came to power they would most assuredly NOT be conservatives.

They would be highly radical, true liberals in the mold of Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Henry, and Washington, in 1775. NOT conservative at all.

B

MS Fowler · #78 05-08-2008, 05:09 PM

I always thought I was a century out of time; now Bot tells me it a century and a half. Well I have aged 50 years since I first had those radical thoughts, so I guess he's right.

Botnst · #79 05-08-2008, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I always thought I was a century out of time; now Bot tells me it a century and a half. Well I have aged 50 years since I first had those radical thoughts, so I guess he's right.

Yuh ol' fort!

B

PS The conservatives of their day were men like Ben Franklin's son. In 1775 I have read estimates that as much as 3/4 of the colonists regarded themselves as Englishmen first and that to them, secession was unacceptable.

tankdriver · #80 05-08-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knightrider966

Quotes by tankdriver: "It's because liberals are diverse, and conservatives are not."
WHAT???? You have got to be kidding me! You don't know many or any conservatives do you? We have more points that we can agree on, true, but conservatives are very diverse and we come in different colors and races too!

I know many conservatives, and hold many conservative positions. Conservatives are inherently not as diverse as liberals. Liberalism can encompass more than conservatism can. See Bot's description of conservatism. It's not a value judgement - one could argue that diversity isn't so great. It's just the nature of liberalism.

Quote:

"There hasn't been more than two kinds of Republicans in 60 years. There are more kinds of liberals than you can shake a stick at. One can't pander to a diverse group, one would spend too much time talking about a slew of topics - only a small portion of which any one listener would care about."
You don't know many Republicans either. Who would have thought there would ever be a group of law abiding, gun toting log cabin Gay Republicans? Not me! I know that most Republicans find more in common than liberals will.

I don't know what a log cabin Republican is, but as mentioned in the Bush PBS series, Republicans have either been Eisenhower Republicans or Goldwater (aka Reagan since he's revered now) Republicans.

Quote:

I'll agree with there are more kinds of liberals than you can shake a stick at. But in my experience living in areas of the country heavily liberal, I can honestly say that although they pretend otherwise, liberals really don't like much, especially each other!

That's kind of the point. Liberals have plenty to disagree about amongst themselves. If two conservatives have plenty to disagree about, chances are one of them isn't really a conservative.

Quote:

"Liberals are generally smart enough not to blame their counterparts for everything. Liberals spread blame among many. That makes for a more difficult show, and one would tend to sound like a ranting lunatic."

Since when have liberals not blamed their counterparts for everything? RODLMAO!

With liberals spreading the blame around to many, who could argue with them sounding like raving lunatics!

Make up your mind. First you say they blame their counterparts, then you agree they blame lots of people. Which is it?

Quote:

"I would only hate to debate any of those guys if it was on their own show. Let me pick the cameraman, producer, and editor and I'd take any one of them on."
Now there we can TOTALLY agree!

A liberal on his own show will never let you make your point without shouting you down!

I think you have liberal confused with conservative. Either that or you've never seen/heard O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity.

Quote:

The one thing I can honestly say that I like about Rush Limbaugh is that he gives everyone the oppportunity to come on his show and debate with him without fear of reprisals or talking down to them.

No fear of reprisals or condescension? Plenty of fear of creative editing, interruption, strawmanning, and Limbaugh's ability to turn off the mic whenever he wants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

The claim was that democrats, being liberals were tolerant, and alowed, even sought, diversity.

The claim made no mention of the word 'democrats'.

Knightrider966 · #81 05-08-2008, 09:15 PM

Make up your mind. First you say they blame their counterparts, then you agree they blame lots of people. Which is it?

Quote: Both! The liberals do not see a distinction here. Anyone who does not agree with them is a counterpart. This does not have to have any fact basis and it can be random and change at the drop of a hat and on the turn of a dime!

I guess I see your point about 2 kinds of Republicans either Eisenhower or Goldwater/Reagan since I happen to be the latter and mostly Goldwater.
Trying to argue the basics and values of Libertarianism with a liberal is like beating a dead horse!

I don't like Hannity much, but I have been on the Rush Limbaugh show where we had a fairly heated disagreement and the man treated me with a great deal of courtesy and respect! He gave me plenty of time to answer and make my point, pointed out where he thought I was mislead and never turned the mic off or interrupted me and yelled over me!

mgburg · #82 05-09-2008, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Some of both sides, IIRC. Swarzennegger, and Powell are pro-abortionists and have given very high profile speeches while most viable candidates for the presidency since Reagan have been anti-abortionists.

Also, ex-Mayor of NYC, Ruddy...he's Pro-Choice...

Here's your ball back 732002...

(Not your ball, Bot!

)

mgburg · #83 05-09-2008, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I have to comment on the title of this thread.

It is ironic ( at least to me) in that the originator was incorect in his analysis of Rush, and therefore was advertising that it was his analysis was incorrect.

DITTO! (Pun heavily INTENDED!!!

)

mgburg · #84 05-09-2008, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

...I don't know what a log cabin Republican is, but as mentioned in the Bush PBS series, Republicans have either been Eisenhower Republicans or Goldwater (aka Reagan since he's revered now) Republicans. ...

I believe the term "Log Cabin Republican" came about due to the fact that some folks, in the "gay community" believe strongly that there is a distinct possibility that Abraham Lincoln (therein, the tie to "Log Cabin") was a participant in a "same-sex" relationship with one of his confidants (sp?) during the Civil War...-

Conservative-thinking, gay folks that are Republicans have formed their own group as an adjunct to the Republican Party and they "adopted" this name ... "Log Cabin Republicans" - sorta' sneaky, isn't it?

Now, keep in mind...that freakzoid from Iran, President "Ineedahandjob" has pronounced that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

If the Repos can welcome gay-folks, does that make the Reps better than Mr. Ineeahandjob and his ilk in Iraq?

I would HOPE that everyone on this thread would, AT LEAST, agree to this statement!

SwampYankee · #85 05-09-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I think that a conservative person favors traditional values and the traditional way of doing things, which is why W is not conservative.

Among many reasons.

Botnst · #86 05-09-2008, 08:51 AM

#87!

Rush loves this thread!

John Doe · #87 05-09-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

#87!

Rush loves this thread!

Why pay for advertising?

cmac2012 · #88 05-09-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamman450

Yet you feel threatened enough to come complaining to OD?

Threatened?! I say wake up people. The man traffics in half truths, day in and day out. It is the minds of his ditto-heads who are threatened.

He was right on the excesses of the welfare state, and that's about it.

cmac2012 · #89 05-09-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

You may certainly laugh at Rush, after all he is an idiot--all conservatives are idiots. Isn't that standard liberal "logic"
Or,
Or you could listen and see if there might be just an element of truth in what he said.
Just a hint...
Probably not----I doubt if the many different blends required by each different metropolitan area has any effect on prices.
I also doubt that the mandates to use ethanol have any effect on either fuel or food prices.

Liberals never want to look at the results of their populist, flawed policies.

If you listened more often you might know that he is not a great fan of the President.

I think Geo. Will is one of the more thought provoking people around. Debra J. Saunders of the SF Chron is quite conservative and I find myself agreeing with her often as not.

C'mon -- Rush blaming high gas prices on misplaced fears on global warming is just moronic. Absolutely unsupportabe, except by his sponsors, backers, and listeners.

I've heard him criticize Bush -- OTOH, I've heard him many times sneer at libbies' distaste for Bush as being mere irrational hatred. Watch out, some 75% of the country appears to have caught some form of Bush Derangement
Syndrome.

cmac2012 · #90 05-09-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cscmc1

Now you know how I feel about self-congratulatory goof troops like Al Franken. There are very few talk radio voices worth hearing (on either side of the spectrum).

Ed Schultz is not bad. Franken has his points but his show wasn't that good. Too self-absorbed. Still, I'd like to see him in the senate.

Coleman gives me a serious pain.