[Chongo]

Originally Posted by waxcrash 

Ha ha, this is good.

I'm Sorry, Rush

And they say liberals don't have a sense of humor.

[nonhuman]

Correlation does not equal causation...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Again, what are you smoking?

Here's what Chongo said:

The markets were >11K when BO was elected, now they are < 7K for the first time in 12 years.

...and every time BO and his minions speak on the economy, it goes down further. BO is in charge now, so when he says he wants to raise cap-gains and corporate taxes, people listen, and react. You can watch the markets decline as Tim G is speaking before The Senate.

[SpaceMonkey]

Yeah, this economy would be fit as a fiddle if only BO would just shut up about capital gains taxes.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yeah, this economy would be fit as a fiddle if only BO would just shut up about capital gains taxes.

If BO wasn't elected president:

Auto industry having record profits.
Housing market reaches a new high.
Unemployment rate at a new low.
Banks earning record profits.
Price of gas at $8/gal.
US now fighting 4 wars instead of 2.

[hyteckit]

According to Chongo:

Obama was elected President on May 2008.

[ironknee]

a) if the president's plan works, we get out from under this epic mess.

b) if the president's plan doesn't work, then it's at least 4 years of bad economy until another general election... are you guys willing to see america fail?

i love america and i stand by my president. anyone who doesn't is a traitor!

why don't you guys move to iraq since you love iraqis so much as to occupy their nation?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

a) if the president's plan works, we get out from under this epic mess.

b) if the president's plan doesn't work, then it's at least 4 years of bad economy until another general election... are you guys willing to see america fail?

Bad logic here. You're assuming that the President is or can be necessary or even helpful in the revival of the economy. There's a third option: c) The economy recovers regardless of who the President is and what the President does or doesn't do.

[hyteckit]

Interesting tidbit:

Rush was divorced 3 times.

1st marriage: lasted less than 3 years
2nd marriage: lasted 7 years
3rd marriage: lasted 10 years

Now he just travels overseas with bottles of viagra and is the champion on conservatism and the sanctity of marriage or rather marriages.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Interesting tidbit:

Rush was divorced 3 times.

1st marriage: lasted less than 3 years
2nd marriage: lasted 7 years
3rd marriage: lasted 10 years

Now he just travels overseas with bottles of viagra and is the champion on conservatism and the sanctity of marriage or rather marriages.

Don't forget that people don't have an excuse for being addicted to drugs, while being addicted to pain killers and coming up with excuses.

[waxcrash]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

And they say liberals don't have a sense of humor.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...ty-in-limbaugh

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Bad logic here. You're assuming that the President is or can be necessary or even helpful in the revival of the economy. There's a third option: c) The economy recovers regardless of who the President is and what the President does or doesn't do.

hmmm

so you are saying the economy could recover regardless of what our president does? then why want him to fail? is it personal? is it because he's black?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

hmmm

so you are saying the economy could recover regardless of what our president does? then why want him to fail? is it personal? is it because he's black?

I assume it's because he has goals and agendas besides the economy. President Obama has many different goals. Some of them I agree with, some of them I don't. I would like to see him succeed in achieving those goals I agree with and fail in achieving those goals that I don't. I wouldn't like to see him fail in general, because I'm a nice person (and also because I have no partisan agenda that's dependent on a ridiculous and false dichotomy between two grossly misidentified and poorly managed parties).

Everything I just said is true regardless of who is president, what color their skin is, what sort of genitalia they have, who they like to sleep with, who or what they pray to (if at all), and what useless label they try to generalize their beliefs to fit under.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i love america and i stand by my president. anyone who doesn't is a traitor!

why don't you guys move to iraq since you love iraqis so much as to occupy their nation?

What free country could right-wing Americans move to that would be more right-wing than the US?

Remember the Alamo!

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

What free country could right-wing Americans move to that would be more right-wing than the US?

Remember the Alamo!

Nah, your more the 3:10 to Yuma type.

[besson3c]

So, are people that want Obama to fail unpatriotic? Were people that didn't support George Bush and his decision to invade Iraq unpatriotic?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Like I said before, I know a lot of liberals who listen just to scream profanities at their radio.

any liberals here who listen to rush? i don't.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I assume it's because he has goals and agendas besides the economy. President Obama has many different goals. Some of them I agree with, some of them I don't. I would like to see him succeed in achieving those goals I agree with and fail in achieving those goals that I don't. I wouldn't like to see him fail in general, because I'm a nice person (and also because I have no partisan agenda that's dependent on a ridiculous and false dichotomy between two grossly misidentified and poorly managed parties).

besides the economy like the right to choose, stem cell research, gay rights... the usual lot right?

so why are the conservatives attacking the president on the very issue of economy? i have yet to hear any attacks on the president on these other issues since the elections yet.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Everything I just said is true regardless of who is president, what color their skin is, what sort of genitalia they have, who they like to sleep with, who or what they pray to (if at all), and what useless label they try to generalize their beliefs to fit under.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, are people that want Obama to fail unpatriotic? Were people that didn't support George Bush and his decision to invade Iraq unpatriotic?

If you don't support Obama's policies, that's fine. If you don't support Pres. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, that's fine.

However, if you want Obama to failed with his economic policies and more American suffering economically, then that is unpatriotic. Same as if you want the US to fail in Iraq and want more American soldiers to die.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

any liberals here who listen to rush? i don't.

I use to watch Rush Limbaugh on TV while in high school. Then I discovered Politically Incorrect and stopped watching Rush Limbaugh. That was many years ago.

Rush was an angry man back then just as he is an angry man now. That's why he has had 3 divorces in 20 years.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by waxcrash 

As I stated before, this strategy has been in the works for some time and it's working.

Working at what? Temporarily distracting the press from the cluster-f*** that Obama is getting us into? Probably.

1. Connect Rush to the GOP - Rush's own admittance that he wants Obama to fail.

What post was Rush elected to?

2. Americans don't want Obama to fail, they want to get out of this mess.

Americans are smart enough to know that when a majority of economists say that Obama is full of **** and that his plan will cripple the economy in the future, that they'd like THAT to fail.

No one wants the economy in the toilet. They are smart enough to figure out though that Obama's plan will make things worse. We don't want him to succeed in that. Pretty much common sense.

3. This makes the GOP fail.

Don't believe me?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html

Your story simply outlined that the White House was creating an "enemies" list and had enlisted a group of "plumbers" to smear and use the power of the executive branch to try and intimidate an unelected American citizen who is part of the media. It also outlined that the guys who failed at demonizing Limbaugh in the past really think that their failed plan will work this time.

I'll tell you why they think this....and why they are so totally wrong. Two words:

KEN STARR

It was these same guy's strategy when Clinton was engaging in felonies. Try to shift focus to someone else via lies, smears and distortions so the media wasn't talking the real issue. In that case, it was the fact that Bill Clinton choose to engage in criminal activity for personal gain and got caught. In this case, it's that Obama is lying and the economy is dying.

The difference is that the goal was simply to allow Clinton to survive until his term was up without getting thrown out, and it worked. The problem is that there are elections in 2 years where Rush Limbaugh will be nowhere on the ballot, but people will still know what a cluster **** Obama has driven the country into. Rush Limbaugh won't be on the ballot as a responsible party. A boogie man isn't going to help Democrats come 2010, I promise you. Even the media will get tired of the "Rush Limbaugh vs. Obama" nonsense soon, I'm betting you and Obama will need to find new advisors who will teach him to act like a man, take responsibility for his actions, and stop putting his partisan political schemes as top priority.

I hear that Dick Morris is still available for consultation. I'm pretty sure the fact that he cleaned up after the mess left by Carville and Begala circa 94' is more than enough of a resume bullet point to get him the job.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Interesting tidbit:

Rush was divorced 3 times.

Divorce is a luxury good, so I guess he's really really rich.

Otherwise, how is this relevant?

ON TOPIC: This strategy started way back when, and the sheep have bought into it. Again, the tactic is to demonize and show as unpatriotic those who oppose you. Learned from The Left, perfected by The Left, and used daily by, you guessed it, The Left.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Divorce is a luxury good, so I guess he's really really rich.

Otherwise, how is this relevant?

ON TOPIC: This strategy started way back when, and the sheep have bought into it. Again, the tactic is to demonize and show as unpatriotic those who oppose you. Learned from The Left, perfected by The Left, and used daily by, you guessed it, The Left.

Yep, right out of Rules for Radicals

Saul Alinsky codified and wrote a clear set of rules for community organizing. His rules for radicals are now used as key tactics to learn in the training of new community organizers. An example of one of these is rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) ."

[stupendousman]

True. Both Clinton and Obama are trying this like the attack machine pros they are.

The last Republican President who tried it got booted out of office for a lot of the types of things this and the last Democrat President did with impunity (since the media was on their side).

Richard Nixon is looking up at these guys and kicking himself because the only thing these guys have on him is charisma and a fawning media.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Divorce is a luxury good, so I guess he's really really rich.

Otherwise, how is this relevant?

ON TOPIC: This strategy started way back when, and the sheep have bought into it. Again, the tactic is to demonize and show as unpatriotic those who oppose you. Learned from The Left, perfected by The Left, and used daily by, you guessed it, The Left.

What? This thread is about Rush Limbaugh. How is Rush Limbaugh relevant to the thread about Rush Limbaugh?

This thread is about The Left?

Maybe we need more pictures of Clinton's pecker for the Clinton's pecker fan club called the Republican party.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

True. Both Clinton and Obama are trying this like the attack machine pros they are.

The last Republican President who tried it got booted out of office for a lot of the types of things this and the last Democrat President did with impunity (since the media was on their side).

Richard Nixon is looking up at these guys and kicking himself because the only thing these guys have on him is charisma and a fawning media.

Nixon had a sense of shame, Bill Clinton has none. Nixon chose to resign rather put the country through a trial before the Senate.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What? This thread is about Rush Limbaugh. How is Rush Limbaugh relevant to the thread about Rush Limbaugh?

This thread is about trying to make Rush the face of the Republican party. Limbaugh and Hannity have said they are conservatives first, and Republicans second. They both went after W about border security and amnesty for illegal aliens, the prescription drug plan, and not vetoing any spending bills. I'd be surprised to see CNN or BOMSNBC go after BO about anything.

This thread is about The Left?

It is also about the left because this is David Axelrod employing Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals.

Maybe we need more pictures of Clinton's pecker for the Clinton's pecker fan club called the main stream media.

fixed

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I'd be surprised to see CNN or BOMSNBC go after BO about anything.

Good point.

But, I think that if Obama dropped his far-left agenda and sided with the Republicans, we'd see the media hand-job stop pronto.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

If you don't support Obama's policies, that's fine. If you don't support Pres. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, that's fine.

However, if you want Obama to failed with his economic policies and more American suffering economically, then that is unpatriotic. Same as if you want the US to fail in Iraq and want more American soldiers to die.

I sort of agree, although I wouldn't characterize this as unpatriotic. Patriotism is such a knee jerky lame ass political weapon, I don't think that even those who want Obama to fail are unpatriotic, I just think that they are overly consumed by partisan politics and this ongoing match between both sides.

I've just about given up on things being any other way in this country, which is why I say if it is going to be this way, might as well pass the hot dogs and beer!

[waxcrash]

From Newsweek:

Rush is making the GOP the party of wimps

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If Bush saw Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan as a serious threat, they would have a strategy too, it's not a big deal, this is how politics works.

Ah, so Obama feels a talk show host is a 'serious threat' for talking on the radio about things Obama doesn't agree with. Got it.

I don't think Bush ever really saw Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan as 'threats'. Moore in particular probably thought he'd have some 'threatening effect' on the 2004 election. We saw how that turned out. I really don't recall Bush quaking in fear over Moore's 'documentaries' and calling for some Hollywood 'fairness doctrine' to try and head them off, nor trying to tell Democrats not to listen to Moore or not allow him at their 2004 convention. (He WAS there, wasn't he? Was Rush at the RNC in 2004? Who leads the parties again? )

Obviously some feel that Rush is able to mobilize people enough to have some of threatening effect

"threatening effect" IE: fear of free speech. Obviously some people aren't very secure in their political belief system that a talk show host causes a 'threatening effect'. Yeah, we knew that, but I mean, it's interesting and refreshing to see such an admission of it. Carry on.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Rush has in typical fashion turned this around on the "threatened" Democrats- if he's the leader of the party, then Obama shouldn't be afraid to come on the air and debate him. After all, Obama himself is insisting that Rush is the Republican leader- then why wouldn't he debate the "leader" of the opposition party?

So the ball is in Obama's court, and Obama set the stage HIMSELF!



The Emperor who's afraid of the guy in the public arena...

Great setup libs!

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I sort of agree, although I wouldn't characterize this as unpatriotic. Patriotism is such a knee jerky lame ass political weapon, I don't think that even those who want Obama to fail are unpatriotic, I just think that they are overly consumed by partisan politics and this ongoing match between both sides.

I've just about given up on things being any other way in this country, which is why I say if it is going to be this way, might as well pass the hot dogs and beer!

Patriotic means loving your country right?

You would love your country just as much as you love your son unconditionally whether or not you support his choices in life.

Say your son is George Bush and he decides to go to war in Iraq. You don't agree with his decision nor do you support the war. You would convince him not to go to war and argue with him. However, he has made up his mind. All you can do is wish him success in the war and hope he comes back alive.

Say your son is Barrack Obama and the family business is failing. HIs brother George Bush failed miserably with the family business and has now hand over the family business to Barrack Obama. Obama decides to implement a whole bunch of changes to the family business in order to save the family business. You disagree with the changes Obama has made and believe the internet is just a fad and that no one would buy iPods cause they are too expensive. You don't support his policies. However, you do wish Obama succeeds and that the family business is kept alive and thrives.



However, Rush Limbaugh, being the bastard dad that he is, would rather see his son Barrack Obama fail and watch the family business fall apart. Rush would do everything possible to see Obama fail and his whole family suffer just to prove how wrong his son is, in order to satisfy his egotistically boneheaded beliefs.

Why wouldn't Rush suffer through his 1st marriage, or his 2nd, or even his 3rd, just to prove how important conservative ideas such as sanctity of marriage is. Instead he got divorce 3 times in 20 years. Maybe because he is a selfish bastard who only cares about himself. If others suffer, that's fine with Rush. As long as he is satisfy, he wouldn't care if his wife, his son, or anyone in his family suffers.


Yes, Rush Limbaugh is the epitome of conservatism.

Then again, conservatives are known to disowned their sons and/or daughters if they somehow turned out to be gay, so I guess that's how conservatives are.

Hmm... come to think of it, conservatives don't really love their country and sons/daughters when their core beliefs are challenged or when they are put in an uncomfortable situation.

[ebuddy]

Exhibit D13,479 of your Progressive movement ladies and gentlemen. ^^^
For the record, loving America does not mean unprecedented effort to make it less like America.
Attacking the result of free speech is patriotic how?

So... let me get this straight;
- Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can outright call Iraq a failure while we actively have soldiers stationed and fighting there and this is somehow acceptable. Elected officials get this pass... they're just telling it like it is... okay. They can talk about expenditure and no exit strategies, etc... fine.
- Rush Limbaugh, a radio talk show host can hope for what he sees as the most socialist agenda in the past 30 years to fail and this is reprehensible and unpatriotic. While the expenditure on this stimulus will dwarf the cost of Iraq and likewise has no exit strategy; how dare you question it? Unpatriotic? Wishing America to fail? Racist? This is how you regard dissent now? Boy and to think of how fashionable dissent was just a few years ago.

This bill has nothing to do with America succeeding through an economic crisis. The sooner it fails, the sooner common sense and a resolution can prevail. Period.

To all ignorant, shameless, hopeless, and helpless libs; STFU. The sooner you figure out that it's a heavy crown the better. You're starting to sound like a bunch of whiny neocons from last decade. If someone had broken into your home and was trying to steal your food out of the refrigerator, you'd hope for failure. It's as simple as that. This stimulus package constitutes the single largest expenditure of Congress in history and will make the expense of Iraq look like a friggin' bargain. You see how the market reacts and the market is a reflection of consumer confidence which comprises over 60% of our economy. This stimulus has got failure written all over it and only a few, but the most hopeless of Obama supporters is on board this crazy train.

Unpatriotic? Hell no. The only thing unpatriotic is this bill that exacerbates failure by rewarding it. The sooner this bill fails, the sooner we can get to a resolution.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... let me get this straight;
- Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can outright call Iraq a failure while we actively have soldiers stationed and fighting there and this is somehow acceptable. Elected officials get this pass... they're just telling it like it is... okay. They can talk about expenditure and no exit strategies, etc... fine.

Excellent point, and a perfect example of how dishonest the left and it's friends in the media are.

Elected Democats get a pass when they essentially wish failure on America. An unelected radio talk show host is held to a completely different standard and made headline news.

...and Democrats wonder why they were out of power for ten years, and will probably be surprised when all their dishonesty and shenanigans see them losing Congressional seats in 2010? And the news media wonders why they are losing money and going under?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Patriotic means loving your country right?

You would love your country just as much as you love your son unconditionally whether or not you support his choices in life.

Say your son is George Bush and he decides to go to war in Iraq. You don't agree with his decision nor do you support the war. You would convince him not to go to war and argue with him. However, he has made up his mind. All you can do is wish him success in the war and hope he comes back alive.

Say your son is Barrack Obama and the family business is failing. HIs brother George Bush failed miserably with the family business and has now hand over the family business to Barrack Obama. Obama decides to implement a whole bunch of changes to the family business in order to save the family business. You disagree with the changes Obama has made and believe the internet is just a fad and that no one would buy iPods cause they are too expensive. You don't support his policies. However, you do wish Obama succeeds and that the family business is kept alive and thrives.



However, Rush Limbaugh, being the bastard dad that he is, would rather see his son Barrack Obama fail and watch the family business fall apart. Rush would do everything possible to see Obama fail and his whole family suffer just to prove how wrong his son is, in order to satisfy his egotistically boneheaded beliefs.

Why wouldn't Rush suffer through his 1st marriage, or his 2nd, or even his 3rd, just to prove how important conservative ideas such as sanctity of marriage is. Instead he got divorce 3 times in 20 years. Maybe because he is a selfish bastard who only cares about himself. If others suffer, that's fine with Rush. As long as he is satisfy, he wouldn't care if his wife, his son, or anyone in his family suffers.


Yes, Rush Limbaugh is the epitome of conservatism.

Then again, conservatives are known to disowned their sons and/or daughters if they somehow turned out to be gay, so I guess that's how conservatives are.

Hmm... come to think of it, conservatives don't really love their country and sons/daughters when their core beliefs are challenged or when they are put in an uncomfortable situation.

Yours is a bizarre and ridiculous hypothetical - Mr. Obama is not the son of Mr. Limbaugh.

Back in the real world, there are very appropriate times when parents hope their children fail. Failure is how we learn. If we do not fail, then we do not have the mistakes from which to learn.

Additionally, parents sometimes leave their children in jail for a weekend rather than leaping to bail them out. Sometimes, children have to experience the severity of their mistakes rather than be rescued from them in order to learn. That's one of the most difficult choices a parent may have to make, finding that balance.

Lastly, Mr. Obama's proposed changes go to change the very core of what America is. We have a process for that, called "constitutional amendments." Mr. Obama is attempting to do this outside of the amendment process. I hope that he fails in that, because the process exists to do it correctly.

Specifically, Congress lacks the authority to spend tax money on banks or any other bailout. Congress further lacks the authority to tell any private organization how much or little can be paid to an employee either by salary or bonus structure. The executive likewise lacks this power. If they wish to grant it to themselves, they must first amend the constitution.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Specifically, Congress lacks the authority to spend tax money on banks or any other bailout.

I'd just like to point out that, regardless of the conviction of its proponent, this interpretation of the Constitution is an extreme minority position.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Patriotic means loving your country right?

You would love your country just as much as you love your son unconditionally whether or not you support his choices in life.

Say your son is George Bush and he decides to go to war in Iraq. You don't agree with his decision nor do you support the war. You would convince him not to go to war and argue with him. However, he has made up his mind. All you can do is wish him success in the war and hope he comes back alive.

Say your son is Barrack Obama and the family business is failing. HIs brother George Bush failed miserably with the family business and has now hand over the family business to Barrack Obama. Obama decides to implement a whole bunch of changes to the family business in order to save the family business. You disagree with the changes Obama has made and believe the internet is just a fad and that no one would buy iPods cause they are too expensive. You don't support his policies. However, you do wish Obama succeeds and that the family business is kept alive and thrives.



However, Rush Limbaugh, being the bastard dad that he is, would rather see his son Barrack Obama fail and watch the family business fall apart. Rush would do everything possible to see Obama fail and his whole family suffer just to prove how wrong his son is, in order to satisfy his egotistically boneheaded beliefs.

Why wouldn't Rush suffer through his 1st marriage, or his 2nd, or even his 3rd, just to prove how important conservative ideas such as sanctity of marriage is. Instead he got divorce 3 times in 20 years. Maybe because he is a selfish bastard who only cares about himself. If others suffer, that's fine with Rush. As long as he is satisfy, he wouldn't care if his wife, his son, or anyone in his family suffers.


Yes, Rush Limbaugh is the epitome of conservatism.

Then again, conservatives are known to disowned their sons and/or daughters if they somehow turned out to be gay, so I guess that's how conservatives are.

Hmm... come to think of it, conservatives don't really love their country and sons/daughters when their core beliefs are challenged or when they are put in an uncomfortable situation.

I still don't see it this way. Like I said, I just think that some people have been blindsided by their need to be on the winning team that they put this above wanting the best for the country. This isn't lack of patriotism, it's lack of balance. If you take away this weird loyalty they have towards their country, their patriotism may be more evident.

[Chongo]

Nancy was not Reagan's first wife.

Rush, like millions of other Americans, became addicted to prescription drugs. He went on his radio show, apologized, and went into rehab. There are doctors who say his deafness is the price he paid for his drug abuse. Rush once smoked cigarettes, and now smokes cigars.

The left loved to go on about how a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend did coke with W, yet had no problem that on a police recording his brother Roger can be heard saying that he must get some cocaine for his brother: "He has a nose like a vacuum cleaner," or with Bubba's antics with cigars. The feminists and femin---s became deaf when several women came forward detailing abuse at the hands of Bill Clinton.

Had W had some "nut case" limo driver claim he had sex and smoke crack with him in the back of a limo, the MSM would have been all over it. Hey it's cool BO showed weakness and started smoking again. Just proves he's human, and not the messiah.

Remember, one of the Democrat mantras is:

"The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters."

[besson3c]

Chongo: your insistence on these retarded left/right generalizations is really tiresome and utterly pointless. I hope someday you agree.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Chongo: your insistence on these retarded left/right generalizations is really tiresome and utterly pointless. I hope someday you agree.

They're retard and pointless when they point out how retarded and pointless the left is. The left is pointing to the stone in the right's eye while ignoring the stone in it's own eye. This is Saul Alinsky's rule #4. 4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." This is easy, many liberals have no rules.

[besson3c]

They are retarded and pointless when they point out anything as it pertains to the left, right, and anything in between, because it is retarded to reduce millions upon millions of people to your little cookie cutter characterizations.

You would be a better debate with a little more focus to your arguments.

[besson3c]

Seriously, why do partisans like Chongo insist on deluding themselves into thinking that a particular way of thinking has a monopoly on a particular kind of logical fallacy? People of all walks of life are capable of the same sorts of mental mistakes, shortcomings, hypocrisy, vitriol, short-sightedness, you name it. News flash: people are morons! I'm a moron!

All these sorts of Ann Coulter style statements do is just put people on the defensive for the sake of putting them on the defensive. These characterizations are logically indefensible, and if there was a way to back them the practical application would still probably be too academic to be useful. So... STOP! This is why the PL sucks.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Seriously, why do partisans like Chongo insist on deluding themselves into thinking that a particular way of thinking has a monopoly on a particular kind of logical fallacy? People of all walks of life are capable of the same sorts of mental mistakes, shortcomings, hypocrisy, vitriol, short-sightedness, you name it. News flash: people are morons! I'm a moron!

I'm not the one who brought up the fact that Rush has been married more than once and was addicted to pain meds. I merely pointed out the same thing you said, we're all human and make mistakes. But again, this Alinsky's rules at work. RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

All these sorts of Ann Coulter style statements do is just put people on the defensive for the sake of putting them on the defensive. These characterizations are logically indefensible, and if there was a way to back them the practical application would still probably be too academic to be useful. So... STOP! This is why the PL sucks.

Coulter is using their own tactics against them. RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."

[ironknee]

speaking of coulter

Ann Coulter: Wasn't Bobby Jindal Great in 'Slumdog Millionaire?'

http://news.aol.com/political-machin...g-millionaire/

[OAW]

Ann "Tranny" Coulter? Yeah she's always good for saying something completely off the wall.

OAW

[hyteckit]

People wishing Obama would fail are traitors to this country.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Yours is a bizarre and ridiculous hypothetical - Mr. Obama is not the son of Mr. Limbaugh.

Back in the real world, there are very appropriate times when parents hope their children fail. Failure is how we learn. If we do not fail, then we do not have the mistakes from which to learn.

Additionally, parents sometimes leave their children in jail for a weekend rather than leaping to bail them out. Sometimes, children have to experience the severity of their mistakes rather than be rescued from them in order to learn. That's one of the most difficult choices a parent may have to make, finding that balance.

Lastly, Mr. Obama's proposed changes go to change the very core of what America is. We have a process for that, called "constitutional amendments." Mr. Obama is attempting to do this outside of the amendment process. I hope that he fails in that, because the process exists to do it correctly.

Specifically, Congress lacks the authority to spend tax money on banks or any other bailout. Congress further lacks the authority to tell any private organization how much or little can be paid to an employee either by salary or bonus structure. The executive likewise lacks this power. If they wish to grant it to themselves, they must first amend the constitution.

Haha... how wrong you are.

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07...s/index_01.htm

Corporate bailouts through history, starting in 1907. JP Morgan received $25 million in bailout from US Treasury.

What part of the constitution says congress can't tell any private organization how much or little can be paid to an employee? There is a federal minimum wage law?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Rush has in typical fashion turned this around on the "threatened" Democrats- if he's the leader of the party, then Obama shouldn't be afraid to come on the air and debate him.

He'll have to wait in line, Obama's first radio interview will be with Ronn Owens.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Ann "Tranny" Coulter? Yeah she's always good for saying something completely off the wall.

OAW

Sorry to bust your dreams, but unless someone has perfected hands transplants, Ann is all woman. (a little tidbit I learned from watching Manswers Saggy Boob Radar segment 3)