Limbaugh

[EagleD]

Lifer, KRAM1, I don't see you rushing (no pun intended) to your keyboard when Limbaugh screws up.

It's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. FAIL.

[eulesseagle]

EagleD-

Let me get this straight........one retorical error in a 90 minute speech, to me, is almost flawless. How about the other 89 minutes and 55 seconds of his talk that Huffington refused to comment?

I am only remined of the phrase, "Extremism, in the defense of liberty, is no vice and that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." (Goldwater, 1964)

I can not remember who said it but I think Churchill said it (Winston not Ward).....and I am not a big fan of Winston and a lesser fan of Ward......and I paraphrase: If you are not a liberal by the time you are 20 you have no heart and if you are not a conservative by the time you are 40 you have no soul.

Fortunately, I can never remember a time in my life that I voted for a liberal......maybe one in sheep's clothing......but the first time I voted for president I voted for Wallace. Then voted for him again four years later. I voted for him because of his conservative political policies which were almost to me, at that time, parallel to Goldwater. By this time, in history, Wallace had distanced himself from this seemingly self destructive stance and had appologized for his segregationist views at the steps of the University of Alabama. "To error is human....to forgive, divine." What I have stated is "not" meant to begin another political discussion on segragationism or civil rights.....only.....that people change due to an inherent growing process in our lives. I had a pastor who once said, "There is nothing you can do about your past but you can start today to make a brand new beginning." I will never forget that statement.

[UNTflyer]

"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'Of the people, by the people, and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."

-Bill Clinton, 1996

He was wrong... neither the Constitution nor the Declaration had this phrase... it is from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

[eulesseagle]

perhaps you can, now, become critical of VP Biden for mispeaking that Louisiana is losing 400 jobs a day about a week ago......as starters. Or, become critical about BHO stating no more earmarks when I become Prez. ooooooops......tell me one person who does not mispeak at one time or another???

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/26/vide...400-jobs-a-day/

(vp biden and his mispeak)

Edited March 3, 2009 by eulesseagle

[KRAM1]

Lifer, KRAM1, I don't see you rushing (no pun intended) to your keyboard when Limbaugh screws up.

It's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. FAIL.

In case you haven't noticed, Rush Limbaugh is NOT president of the United States! And, for the record...I have never been a Rush fan!

[EagleD]

We can cite errors in political speeches all day long. I just find it amusing that Lifer and KRAM, who start the vast majority of political threads on this forum, would not even think of correcting their beloved Limbaugh.

I'm not completely up to date on why Limbaugh was speaking, but wasn't he presented the "Defender of the Constitution" award, or some such thing? If I were being presented that award I'd make sure to quote the correct text and not another.

"But then again, I'm a reader" - Bill Hicks.

[EagleD]

In case you haven't noticed, Rush Limbaugh is NOT president of the United States! And, for the record...I have never been a Rush fan!

Noted.

Unless you are talking about the band from Canada. They rock my balls!

Edited March 3, 2009 by EagleD

[KRAM1]

We can cite errors in political speeches all day long. I just find it amusing that Lifer and KRAM, who start the vast majority of political threads on this forum, would not even think of correcting their beloved Limbaugh.

I'm not completely up to date on why Limbaugh was speaking, but wasn't he presented the "Defender of the Constitution" award, or some such thing? If I were being presented that award I'd make sure to quote the correct text and not another.

"But then again, I'm a reader" - Bill Hicks.

And, I find it amusing that EagleD never fully reads a post. Can you show me where I said I was a Rush fan? A little "holier than thou attitude" from you, Mr. EagleD.

[EagleD]

KRAM,

I think we got caught posting jabs at each other at the same time. I've noted you are not a fan of Limbaugh. You just seem to recite a lot of the same rhetoric.

Holier than thou? Not particularly. I'm just as apt to criticize dems as reps. Can you say the same?

[KRAM1]

Yep....I think there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Republicans certainly "lost there way" over the last few years and that led directly to the election of Mr. Obama and a majority of Dems in the House. Republicans get 100% of the blame for that!

[EagleD]

Yep....I think there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Republicans certainly "lost there way" over the last few years and that led directly to the election of Mr. Obama and a majority of Dems in the House. Republicans get 100% of the blame for that!

And that's why I LOVE "The Daily Show". Jon may be left leaning, but he and his writers call out politicians on both sides of the aisle.

[UNTflyer]

We can cite errors in political speeches all day long. I just find it amusing that Lifer and KRAM, who start the vast majority of political threads on this forum, would not even think of correcting their beloved Limbaugh.

I'm not completely up to date on why Limbaugh was speaking, but wasn't he presented the "Defender of the Constitution" award, or some such thing? If I were being presented that award I'd make sure to quote the correct text and not another.

"But then again, I'm a reader" - Bill Hicks.

Well I am a fan of Rush, but I didn't think to correct him because I don't read the Huffington Post and was not aware of any mistake.

After reading this article, I have to laugh especially at this line: "Still, in the process of accusing Obama for a lack of reverence of the Constitution, it would have undoubtedly served him better to have properly recognized the Constitution himself."

The writer clearly misses the point. Rush has attacked Obama for pushing the growth and expansion of government beyond its Constitutional boundaries. He attacks Obama's attacks on capitalism and the private sector. Simply inserting the word "Freedom" when discussing the preamble of the Constitution is a stupid thing to write an article about. And the writer's final words is nothing more than an apples-to-giraffes comparison.

[Coffee and TV]

There's no reason in the world that a traitor like Limbaugh deserves a thread of his own.

[UNTflyer]

There's no reason in the world that a traitor like Limbaugh deserves a thread of his own.

That's a strong word to so loosely throw around.

[Coffee and TV]

That's a strong word to so loosely throw around.

Loosely?

Hoping that Obama fails means that you hope the country fails. That's a traitor in my book.

[KRAM1]

Loosely?

Hoping that Obama fails means that you hope the country fails. That's a traitor in my book.

You certainly have a very interesting book. Does it include other made up definitions?

[KingDL1]

Loosely?

Hoping that Obama fails means that you hope the country fails. That's a traitor in my book.

Really wow, sorry I don't like Obama's lies and polices either and I hope they fail as well. But calling me or Rush a traitor seems like you may need to work on your education a little bit.

[UNTflyer]

Hoping that Obama fails means that you hope the country fails. That's a traitor in my book.

Hoping Obama fails means I want capitalism to succeed. Obama's agenda is more government, bigger government, less incentive to take risks, and the embracing the European model of economics.

I hope he fails.

[EagleD]

Hoping Obama fails means I want capitalism to succeed. Obama's agenda is more government, bigger government, less incentive to take risks, and the embracing the European model of economics.

I hope he fails.

Why would you want him to fail?

If he succeeds then we'll get out of the financial disaster that deregulation (corporate welfare) got us into.

If he succeeds then every American will be able to get medical treatment, not just the ones fortunate to have jobs. Health care facilities might stay open!

If he succeeds then our standing across the world will be repaired. A standing we lost when we started a controversial and costly war.

If he succeeds we can rebuild our infrastructure thereby creating more jobs.

If he succeeds we can create newer forms of energy thereby lessening our dependance of foreign oil.

If he succeeds my kid will be able to go to college w/o me having to worry about my retirement.

Why would you not want any of that?

Hey man, I freaking railed against George W. Bush from the day he took office, and much before that. But if his system had worked, I would have said, you know you're right. We are better off. But we tried it you're way. And your way FAILED!!!!!! It FAILED!!!!!!!!!! IT FREAKING FAILED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't deregulate corporate America because the tempt for greed is too much for most people. If you give corporations the option of a.) better for my country or b.) better for my pocketbook, they will always choose pocketbook. Government is OK if there is proper oversight. But to give the reigns over to corporate America with no policing, especially with their track record, is asinine!

[UNT90]

Hey man, I freaking railed against George W. Bush from the day he took office, and much before that. But if his system had worked, I would have said, you know you're right. We are better off. But we tried it you're way. And your way FAILED!!!!!! It FAILED!!!!!!!!!! IT FREAKING FAILED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't deregulate corporate America because the tempt for greed is too much for most people. If you give corporations the option of a.) better for my country or b.) better for my pocketbook, they will always choose pocketbook. Government is OK if there is proper oversight. But to give the reigns over to corporate America with no policing, especially with their track record, is asinine!

So I assume you are a huge fan of Ronald Reagan?

I would almost bet a paycheck that you have never worked for a governmental agency.

Edited March 3, 2009 by UNT90

[UNTflyer]

Why would you want him to fail?

If he succeeds then we'll get out of the financial disaster that deregulation (corporate welfare) got us into.

If he succeeds then every American will be able to get medical treatment, not just the ones fortunate to have jobs. Health care facilities might stay open!

If he succeeds then our standing across the world will be repaired. A standing we lost when we started a controversial and costly war.

If he succeeds we can rebuild our infrastructure thereby creating more jobs.

If he succeeds we can create newer forms of energy thereby lessening our dependance of foreign oil.

If he succeeds my kid will be able to go to college w/o me having to worry about my retirement.

Why would you not want any of that?

What deregulation are you talking about? Obama supporters love to throw this around, that deregulation caused this... but the reality is that there is MORE regulation (Sarbanes-Oxley) than there was before Bush was sworn in. The only significant deregulation of banking, credit, and finance was the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, signed in 1999 by Clinton. It was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Nothing about Obama's economic plan fixes this, but it racks up $5 TRILLION in debt in the first year alone, discourages investors to get back in the market, and weakens credit markets.

Sorry, but why should medical treatment be guaranteed? Will food be next? Clothing? Housing? It is not the government's place to provide basic services that people can get on their own. I don't want a government rationing out health care like they ration out other services. Government-run healthcare will be run as efficiently as the driver's license bureau ot the local post office.

"Our standing around the world." I mean, honestly who cares what Middle Eastern countries think of us? Who cares what Europe thinks of us? Do you think the French are fretting over how Americans view them? How insecure have we become, sitting at home and worrying like a school girl about what the quarterback thinks? I don't want a President kissing Russia's ass and giving up our missile shield so they can "help" with Iran.

I've said it before... rebuilding infrastructure will not "create" jobs. Road crew companies almost always have work. At best, it may save some jobs but it will not create a significant amount of jobs. I don't want "make work" programs like we had in the Depression.

Here's how you lower our dependence on foreign oil... let us drill for the oil in our own backyard. But hey, if you want to pay $3 KwH and have $900 electric bills, then wind and solar power are for you... but it's not for me. We can't run the world on sunshine and unicorn farts.

Really, is he going to provide a "free" college education for your kid? Shouldn't college be an investment, not a freebie? College is still cheap right now. It used to be only the very wealthy could send their children to college, now almost anybody can go. And if they still can't afford it, there's nothing wrong with your kid working his/her way through school. I don't want a college degree to have the same value as a high school diploma.

So yeah... I hope he fails.

[untbowler]

Why would you want him to fail?

If he succeeds then we'll get out of the financial disaster that deregulation (corporate welfare) got us into.

If he succeeds then every American will be able to get medical treatment, not just the ones fortunate to have jobs. Health care facilities might stay open!

If he succeeds then our standing across the world will be repaired. A standing we lost when we started a controversial and costly war.

If he succeeds we can rebuild our infrastructure thereby creating more jobs.

If he succeeds we can create newer forms of energy thereby lessening our dependance of foreign oil.

If he succeeds my kid will be able to go to college w/o me having to worry about my retirement.

Why would you not want any of that?

Hey man, I freaking railed against George W. Bush from the day he took office, and much before that. But if his system had worked, I would have said, you know you're right. We are better off. But we tried it you're way. And your way FAILED!!!!!! It FAILED!!!!!!!!!! IT FREAKING FAILED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't deregulate corporate America because the tempt for greed is too much for most people. If you give corporations the option of a.) better for my country or b.) better for my pocketbook, they will always choose pocketbook. Government is OK if there is proper oversight. But to give the reigns over to corporate America with no policing, especially with their track record, is asinine!

Those are really nice talking points. So are you going to be pissed when Obama-ssiah starts a full offensive into Afghanistan and our Ally Pakistan, costing large amounts of monies and probably American lives?

[emmitt01]

Well I am a fan of Rush, but I didn't think to correct him because I don't read the Huffington Post and was not aware of any mistake.

After reading this article, I have to laugh especially at this line: "Still, in the process of accusing Obama for a lack of reverence of the Constitution, it would have undoubtedly served him better to have properly recognized the Constitution himself."

The writer clearly misses the point. Rush has attacked Obama for pushing the growth and expansion of government beyond its Constitutional boundaries. He attacks Obama's attacks on capitalism and the private sector. Simply inserting the word "Freedom" when discussing the preamble of the Constitution is a stupid thing to write an article about. And the writer's final words is nothing more than an apples-to-giraffes comparison.

No, inserting the word "freedom" among life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the minor mistake he made. Attributing these rights to the preamble of the constitution at all was the major mistake.

Just to be clear though, I think basing anyone's argument on a rhetorical gaffe by anyone is weak footing to stand on.

[EagleD]

What deregulation are you talking about? Obama supporters love to throw this around, that deregulation caused this... but the reality is that there is MORE regulation (Sarbanes-Oxley) than there was before Bush was sworn in. The only significant deregulation of banking, credit, and finance was the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, signed in 1999 by Clinton. It was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Nothing about Obama's economic plan fixes this, but it racks up $5 TRILLION in debt in the first year alone, discourages investors to get back in the market, and weakens credit markets.

Sorry, but why should medical treatment be guaranteed? Will food be next? Clothing? Housing? It is not the government's place to provide basic services that people can get on their own. I don't want a government rationing out health care like they ration out other services. Government-run healthcare will be run as efficiently as the driver's license bureau ot the local post office.

"Our standing around the world." I mean, honestly who cares what Middle Eastern countries think of us? Who cares what Europe thinks of us? Do you think the French are fretting over how Americans view them? How insecure have we become, sitting at home and worrying like a school girl about what the quarterback thinks? I don't want a President kissing Russia's ass and giving up our missile shield so they can "help" with Iran.

I've said it before... rebuilding infrastructure will not "create" jobs. Road crew companies almost always have work. At best, it may save some jobs but it will not create a significant amount of jobs. I don't want "make work" programs like we had in the Depression.

Here's how you lower our dependence on foreign oil... let us drill for the oil in our own backyard. But hey, if you want to pay $3 KwH and have $900 electric bills, then wind and solar power are for you... but it's not for me. We can't run the world on sunshine and unicorn farts.

Really, is he going to provide a "free" college education for your kid? Shouldn't college be an investment, not a freebie? College is still cheap right now. It used to be only the very wealthy could send their children to college, now almost anybody can go. And if they still can't afford it, there's nothing wrong with your kid working his/her way through school. I don't want a college degree to have the same value as a high school diploma.

So yeah... I hope he fails.

1. I'm sorry, I meant enforcement of regulations. And you're right Bill Clinton is the best conservative president this country has ever had.

2. Why is it that if I'm sitting at a red light and an accident occurs that is none of my fault, the police show up and it's my my tax dollars at work. The fire dept shows up and it my tax dollars at work. But as soon as the ambulance shows up there's money out of my pocket?

3. Yeah our standing in the world does matter. I'd like to have good relations with countries we might trade goods and services with. The better question is why would you NOT want good relations? Do you just like picking fights? I'd like to live side by side with my fellow man, not gun to gun.

4 & 5. Infrastructure is more than roads and bridges. If we had invested all the money in the Iraq war into alternative forms of energy, we would have created a lot of jobs. We would have reduced a lot of pollution (global warming theories aside, if you put pollutants in the air, it's bad for the enviroment). And we would have stopped supporting the nations that wish to harm us.

6. Spin it. Spin it like your dark lord an master Karl Tove taught you. Who said free? I certainly didn't. I said afford. If my kid wants to go to college, of course we should pay for it, but it shouldn't cost me an arm and a leg. I worked my ass off frying fish at Long John Silver's to get through college. There is no way you could do that now. I am the youngest of 4 kids and the cost of our college education grew by leaps and bounds from the oldest to me. College is most definitely not cheap.

[Coffee and TV]

Hoping Obama fails means I want capitalism to succeed. Obama's agenda is more government, bigger government, less incentive to take risks, and the embracing the European model of economics.

I hope he fails.

What Obama is doing/wants/whatever you batshit crazy wingnuts thinks he wants is NOT socialism. Until you get that through your thick skulls you are hopeless. Each and every one of you. Come back and talk to me when you realize that he's a capitalist with a different point of view. Until then you're all traitors for wanting him or his policies to fail. Traitors.