Rush has said that the purpose of "operation chaos" is to politically damage both democrat candidates.
I find it amusing when talking heads say things like," Rush thinks Hillary would be easier to defeat than Obama, so he tells his ditto heads to support Hillary in the primaries". He has never said anything like that.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Rush has now received over 150 posts to his thread, and he doesn't even have a prayer tower!

Rush loves you, each and everyone!

B

I suppose 'operation chaos' is his "right" though some assert that trying to muck with an election is not legal.

Whatever, it's cheap, petty, and utterly lacking in honor. Some demos voted for McCain, no doubt, but the impression I get is that they did it because they liked him.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

But it makes great ratings. Ratings makes sponsorship. Sponsorship makes money.

As long as people pay attention to a particular course that Mr Limbaugh takes, he will follow that course and make money. He has an incredible instinct for staying a bit ahead of his audience and that makes money for his sponsors. I guarantee this: If you had a product that appealed to working-class conservatives you would consider advertising on Limbaugh's show if you could afford it.

B

I believe your memory of "some democrats" is somewhat flawed. "Some dems" along with the press got McCain enough early publicity (along with poor campaigning by the rest of the republican field) to make him the early leader.
The dems in those early primary states will no way support him against a democrat. They voted for him because he was appealing to democrat voters--as opposed to the other repubs. But when faced with the choice between a faux democrat ( McCain), and the true democrat, they will vote for the true dem.
IMO, cross-over voting should be banned. The primaries are elections used by the parties to select the party's candidates. Allowing non-party members to have a say in them is suicidal.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I'm leaning that direction myself.

However, I don't think any other Rep. had a prayer this year, McCain might actually do it. Obama would have slaughtered the stiff, phony Romney in debates. And Huckabee, nice guy but too much of a Gomer -- and the creationist thing would have hurt.

The others were about as charming as Kucinich or Gephardt.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

CMAC,
The answer lies in your signature line.
It IS the culture.
Remember the quote, " Without a vision, the people perish"? We, as a people have no vision of our society that is "worthy". We, as a people, have no fear of any diety, any future judgment, our Courts are corrupt, and punish the innocent and allow the guilty to go free. As a result all issues become primarily financial ones. Our law-makers (generally) consider themselves our masters, rather than our servants. "Public sevice" is now an oxymoron.
Is that a bleak enough bleak outlook? No wonder the Muslims refer to us as "The Great Satan". We resemble that remark.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

RichC,
I agree...to a point.
To live in fear is to be manipulated.
But BOTH parties use fear to motivate their bases.
Liberals use the fear that a Christian candidate will impose his views in their bedrooms.
Democrats continually use fear of SS going bankrupt to motivate the elderly--but then they never solve the problem. If they actually fixed SS, they could no longer use it to dfearfully manipulate the elderly.

There are more examples, and I don't wish to make lists to see which party uses fear more than the other.
Its enough to say that Fear is a well-used tool to motivate various factions of both parties.
To single out the repubs and say they use fear is to speak only half of the truth.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

.

There is a difference between pointing out a potential problem that may
cause fear in some people.

And deliberately using fear as a tactic to manipulate peoples opinion.

I do not think it is evil to point out that there are problems with SS.

I do think it is evil to get people to vote for you by scaring them into believing that gay marriage will destroy the American family.

One is a valid problem. Social security is in jeopardy.
People will die from lack of medication, food, housing etc..


The second is a ridiculous claim. Gay marriage will destroy the American family.

What, is a gay couple gonna sneak into your house while your having
dinner and start having sex in front of your family or something ?
And even if they did how does that destroy a family ?

...

One is a valid concern.

One is a con and a lie setup to effect how you vote.



RichC

.

__________________

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
Jimi Hendrix

The major political parties offer little difference between them. Thank goodness Bob Barr has entered the race. Now I can vote for somebody whom I respect. Yes, we have different views on a few issues, but I'm not a single-issue voter. The man stands for liberty and the constitution. That's fine with me.

B

Operation CHAOS, like the attempt by Democrat-friendly parties to manipulate the Bush-McCain primaries back when Bush was still under the guise of being a Conservative to Conservatives (change your registration in order to vote for McCain because the base won't go out to vote for him), will fail.

This appears to be strike two on that not-so-clandestined political strategy.

__________________

1980 300TD-China Blue/Blue MBTex-2nd Owner, 107K (Alt Blau) OBK #15
'06 Chevy Tahoe Z71 (for the wife & 4 kids, current mule) '03 Honda Odyssey (son #1's ride, reluctantly) '99 GMC Suburban (255K+ miles, semi-retired mule) 21' SeaRay Seville (summer escape pod)

So did Ron Paul...and look what happened to him...

My decision to vote for who I choose is just that...MY DECISION.

Not Rush's.

Not Bot's.

Not cmac2012's.

Not RichC's.

Not my wife's.

It's mine.

My decision is based on what information (this is going to sound familiar to some folks here...and not because I said it) I have in front of me, whatever research I've done on the topic (not panic-info from someone else), the particular candidate's RECORD or past actions on concerns that are dear to me and what the person's CORE VALUES are.

I've said this in the past...The foundation that a person has established says more about that person's character than anything else.

If the candidate has been a model citizen and suddenly he's (term is a gender-neutral reference) thrust into the lime-light of the political theater, there's bound to be a substantial change in that individual...anyone that believes different is not dealing with reality...as part of the saying goes..."...power corrupts..."

But, over the past 30 years, education has slipped to all-time lows...I read, on this forum, "tons" of posts about how the "President did this..." and the "President did that..." and what I'm reading is something that the poster read/heard from someone else and parroted it back to this stage...

Like "some" media outlets, the "facts" (as they were) have never been checked or verified...

The President doesn't spend one penny unless Congress approves it.

The President doesn't send one soldier into harm's way unless Congress approves it.

The President doesn't "dictate policy" from the Oval Office unless Congress approves it.

That's why this country is the best that there is in the world. These "checks" and "balances" were set up by men that had moral character and fiber in their beings...they had a solid foundation in which to draw strength from...and the had they courage to stand up and fight (literally) for what they believed in. Many fought and lost much.

Are all the people that were, or currently serving, in government pure and pristine?

Are you kidding?

Human nature skews those numbers...I would venture to guess that no less than 40% couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag with the bottom missing and sides ripped open. Some of them demonstrate, on a day-to-day basis, that they are there for themselves (or someone else) only...not for the very people that elected them.

So, is Rush guilty of manipulating the Democratic process?

He's no more guilty than OPEC - Any PAC - DNC - RNC - FBI - CIA - IRS - or any other entity that promotes their side.

If the rules are set up to vote for whoever I choose, then when I punch out a chad, connect the arrow or pull a lever...that's me in that booth doing the damage, not you, not Rush, not Al (Franken, not Gore!) or any other "mystery entity" of anyone else's imagination.

And who I vote for is no one else's business. They may think they should know, but they're wrong.

If you're looking for the "Voting Boogey-man" - look no further than the little boxes in your home or car...and even more so on voting day...the media will "give" you instant, up to the last nauseating minute, coverage of what THEY THINK the current situation is.

If ESPN can give you 6 hours of non-stop coverage of the NFL Draft and somehow managed to keep a few million folks glued to the radio or TV, where on earth do you think those clowns got their lessons from?

And if you think that for one minute that Rush, or anyone else for that matter, can perform "mind tricks" from behind a microphone, thousands of miles away from the actual voting booth, then I have a little story for you...something involving a few Martians and a few non-descript little towns in New Jersey...

Because, what I see here is no different than what was done many years ago on a dark, Halloween, night.

And if that person and his merry little band of players were able to pull that off, then he's not too far off from having predicted that human nature can be manipulated enough to get a certain character, named "Wilson," to believe that "...2+2 does equal 5..."

But, no one, that I'm aware of, is being kept in a small box or having their spirit broken in order to vote for someone else's candidate of choice.

But, if you want to believe that little bit of VOODOO, well, all I can say is...

"Good for you Wilson. You've figured it out."

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

If you agree that SS is in jepardy, don't you think its use as a continual campaign issue is hypocritical? Why have the dems not solved it permanently by now? They have had the opportunity, and the ability, but lack the will. The obvious answer is that they want to retain it as a campaign issue. That is evil.

As for gay marriage. My opposition lies in the word "marriage". I have no problem with civil unions, or almost any other term. I fully support their civil rights.
Marriage has always (thruought recorded history anyway) meant a man and a woman. You are the proponent that we should not change definitions simply to suit ourselves. Why not be consistent, and acknowledge that the word "marriage" is inappropriate for gay couples? Or is there another, hidden agenda?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Is issue I was talking about is the idea that gay marriage will destroy American families.

Not if we should call gay marriages, civil unions or anything else.

The republicans have not fixed SS either.
So your argument can be turned around toward republicans also.

you can dance around the issues but they are still there.

And you can polish a turd all you want but it will still stink.


RichC

.

__________________

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
Jimi Hendrix

If you want to blame Social Security's problems on the Democrats, then don't you have to give them full credit for its successes? If so, I think the Democrats should take that trade because the successes of Social Security vastly out-weigh its problems.

And when did the Democrats have the opportunity and ability to solve the problems with Social Security?