Flawed analysis of Rush Limbaugh - Page 12 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

RichC · #**166** 05-13-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

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?

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

.

Honus · #**167** 05-13-2008, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

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...

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?

John Doe · #**168** 05-13-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

.
The guy is a fat, drug addicted, self centered, ego maniac
making big bucks off

RichC

.

IIRC, that is how you described yourself previously on this forum. Except you don't have a job.

mgburg · #**169** 05-13-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

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?

When they first started raiding the program back during the Johnson administration...they could have left the monies in the trust account and raised the taxes for their "new-deal" programs...but they didn't want that to occur...giving equal rights to blacks and the expanding the nanny-state were the programs that needed funding...no one wanted to pay for that (as well as the escalating conflict in 'Nam), so they took the money from SS, the taxes didn't go up that much (as they should have) and nobody was the wiser...

Except Ron Paul...that's when he decided to get into politics.

And whoever is the top party in Congress is the caretaker of the SS funding...as far as I can tell, the Reps have WAY TOO FEW YEARS to call this their problem...but they are just as guilty for not solving it, or being able to stop the bleeding.

As for giving anyone credit for SS...a Ponzi scheme is a Ponzi scheme...leave FDR's carcass alone...just stop the damn program, give the people their money back and shut the mess down...it's only turning this country into a bunch of cry-baby sheep.

732002 · #**170** 05-13-2008, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

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?

SS and the national debt will hurt our future. The GOP had controll
2000-2006 and spent us into further into debt and did not fix SS.
The blame is shared by both sides.

Gay marriage: Gov should only give civil unions, churches give marriage.
Fair and simple. What is this hidden agenda that the right is alway bringing
up?

Glenn Beck: bugs me more than Rush. Smug, simplistic and one sided
discusions.

Honus · #**171** 05-13-2008, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 732002

...Glenn Beck: bugs me more than Rush. Smug, simplistic and one sided discusions.

That guy is always on TV. It's like the Headline News people find him so incredibly important that they must give him hours and hours of airtime. It's such a waste of a tremendous media asset.

MS Fowler · #**172** 05-13-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

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?

I was not blaming all of SS's problems on the dems.
I was merely pointing out how they use SS as an issue, but never solve it.
Sure, blame the repubs, too, if you want.
But the argument was presented that evil repubs use fear to manipulate voters, while saintly dems speak only to real issues.
It was already pointed out that dems, as far back as the Johnson administration began raiding of SS to fund their mandates.
How about during Carter when they controlled the White House, Congress, and the Courts?
Why was it not solved under Clinton?

Botnst · #**173** 05-13-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That guy is always on TV. It's like the Headline News people find him so incredibly important that they must give him hours and hours of airtime. It's such a waste of a tremendous media asset.

He wouldn't be on air if he didn't bring in the sponsorship. News is not a public service, it's a business.

B

MS Fowler · #**174** 05-13-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

He wouldn't be on air if he didn't bring in the sponsorship. News is not a public service, it's a business.

B

An inconvenient truth!

732002 · #**175** 05-13-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

He wouldn't be on air if he didn't bring in the sponsorship. News is not a public service, it's a business.

B

and McDonald's makes money but that doesn't make the food good for you.

I do wonder why conservative TV and radio seem to do better than liberal shows. More conservatives, conservatives watch more TV and listen to more radio?

Nancy Grace:

Honus · #**176** 05-13-2008, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

An inconvenient truth!

More like an unfortunate truth.

CNN (parent of Headline News) is, IMHO, wasting a valuable resource by giving Glen Beck so much air time. If Beck is making their shareholders a good return on their investment, then I guess they would not see it as waste.

MS Fowler · #**177** 05-13-2008, 09:40 PM

One of the real freedoms in America is to make our own choices.
We can choose to eat at Mac Donalds, even though we know it is a poor choice.
We reward success. Rush is rewarded because a great many people listen--sometimes in spite of his stichk.
Unlike liberals, he does not trash America. Like it or not, many Americans like to hear good things about their country; not that America is the root of all evil in the world today.
Unlike many liberals, Rush tells his listeners that they can be successful at whatever they chose to do.
People generally choose to listen to positive stuff as opposed to negatine stuff.

We have that choice---until someone takes it away. Would we be better off without that choice?

cmac2012 · #**178** 05-13-2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

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.

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.

cmac2012 · #**179** 05-13-2008, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgburg

Duuuuuude, like WOW man...are we talking 'bout the Bush & Rush of the 80s or the 00s?

Come on...if YOU believe Rush believes he's directing the downfall of the Democratic party by orchestrating a cross-over voting scheme for Hilly-Bob, then someone connected the two posts of a 9-Volt battery on your tin-foil hat and plugged in the wall-wart charger for extra juice...

Seriously, if Rush could "sway" the election process with his listenership, then apathy in this election is at an all-time high...at least from the Democratic side.

I didn't think he'd have that big of an effect and it appears he hasn't. The guy cheapens the whole process, with the aid of his many dittoheads (a bizarre appelation if there ever was one).

I think he's trying to divert attention from just how badly the whole Repo hijacking of our country has gone.

cmac2012 · #**180** 05-13-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That guy is always on TV. It's like the Headline News people find him so incredibly important that they must give him hours and hours of airtime. It's such a waste of a tremendous media asset.

Yup, he even out-clowns Rush, and that's some trick.