[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
<<< A long post >>>
“Neocon” right?[/quote]
Excuse me?
I LOVE how liberals and so called “moderates” are all of a sudden experts on what conservatism is…
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
I LOVE how liberals and so called “moderates” are all of a sudden experts on what conservatism is…[/quote]
So…do you have an issue with what was said or who said it?
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
I LOVE how liberals and so called “moderates” are all of a sudden experts on what conservatism is…[/quote]
LOL so you have to be associated with a political movement in order to define it? Alright.
Anyway, Rush is going to be doing more harm than good if Obama keeps painting him as the Republican leader. What a sly bastard.
[quote]Rape Weight wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
I LOVE how liberals and so called “moderates” are all of a sudden experts on what conservatism is…
LOL so you have to be associated with a political movement in order to define it? Alright.
Anyway, Rush is going to be doing more harm than good if Obama keeps painting him as the Republican leader. What a sly bastard.[/quote]
It could backfire on the White House too if they keep pushing it. It’s one big side show that’s really going nowhere. Rush has gotten so much media attention lately and he may gain more from this than previously thought. He now gets to paint himself as some populist of conservative values even though most people can’t stand him. But it’s only Rush’s popularity that stands to gain, not necessarily the Republican party’s or the conservative movement’s.
Even if conservatives have a good message to put out, Rush is not the man to spread it to independents. He’s a divisive, pretentious blowhard(like all talk-show hosts, right and left) who’s tough to side with.
[quote]abcd1234 wrote:
Rape Weight wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
I LOVE how liberals and so called “moderates” are all of a sudden experts on what conservatism is…
LOL so you have to be associated with a political movement in order to define it? Alright.
Anyway, Rush is going to be doing more harm than good if Obama keeps painting him as the Republican leader. What a sly bastard.
It could backfire on the White House too if they keep pushing it. It’s one big side show that’s really going nowhere. Rush has gotten so much media attention lately and he may gain more from this than previously thought. He now gets to paint himself as some populist of conservative values even though most people can’t stand him. But it’s only Rush’s popularity that stands to gain, not necessarily the Republican party’s or the conservative movement’s.
Even if conservatives have a good message to put out, Rush is not the man to spread it to independents. He’s a divisive, pretentious blowhard(like all talk-show hosts, right and left) who’s tough to side with. [/quote]
The more Obama does this sneaky referencing the worse the Republican’s image is to moderates/independents/what have you. Rush only reflects a fringe of America (and he is aware of this, especially since that football announcing gig fell through) and the more Obama forces the GOP into that fringe the tougher time they are going to have.
Rush has been getting more exposure recently, it’s true, but I would not say it has been positive, especially to the average American.
[quote]Rape Weight wrote:
abcd1234 wrote:
Rape Weight wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
I LOVE how liberals and so called “moderates” are all of a sudden experts on what conservatism is…
LOL so you have to be associated with a political movement in order to define it? Alright.
Anyway, Rush is going to be doing more harm than good if Obama keeps painting him as the Republican leader. What a sly bastard.
It could backfire on the White House too if they keep pushing it. It’s one big side show that’s really going nowhere. Rush has gotten so much media attention lately and he may gain more from this than previously thought. He now gets to paint himself as some populist of conservative values even though most people can’t stand him. But it’s only Rush’s popularity that stands to gain, not necessarily the Republican party’s or the conservative movement’s.
Even if conservatives have a good message to put out, Rush is not the man to spread it to independents. He’s a divisive, pretentious blowhard(like all talk-show hosts, right and left) who’s tough to side with.
The more Obama does this sneaky referencing the worse the Republican’s image is to moderates/independents/what have you. Rush only reflects a fringe of America (and he is aware of this, especially since that football announcing gig fell through) and the more Obama forces the GOP into that fringe the tougher time they are going to have.
Rush has been getting more exposure recently, it’s true, but I would not say it has been positive, especially to the average American.[/quote]
This is wholly dependent on Obama’s performance and the state of the economy in the coming years as a result of his policies. If they are unsuccessful, more may side with Rush’s positions/criticisms of Obama, but not necessarily Rush himself.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
abcd1234 wrote:
Rush Limbaugh: The Moveon.org of the Republican Party. Basically an outlet for the Right to circle jerk. Too polarizing to sway many moderates, even if his message has some merit.
His message has plenty of merit. I just choose not to listen to it over and over again, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have merit.
Quotes like the one above are ridiculous and intellectually lazy. Instead, how about you point out a message of Rush’s that you don’t agree with, and we will discuss. And please, not out of context snippets.
There are others that are parots more than consevative intellectuals, like Hannity, that would be much easier to attack. There are also others that are much more contraversial and abrasive. Mark Levin is my absolute favorite.
Mark Levin? Was just listening to him today, he sounds like a raving asshole, in the first ten minutes or so of this show:
David Frum (who’s also an asshole) is right in saying Levin sounds like a lunatic yelling at passing cars. You enjoy listening to this junk?[/quote]
That’s why I like him. I laugh my ass off when I do get to hear him.
I don’t really listen to any talk radio anymore. I spend a tremendous amount of time in the car. I would rather listen to books on CD. If I find myself out of books in the middle of a trip, I’ll pull my laptop (sprint card) out and listen to his show on the internet. I think he is hilarious.
[quote]abcd1234 wrote:
<<< If they are unsuccessful, more may side with Rush’s positions/criticisms of Obama, but not necessarily Rush himself.
[/quote]
That’s pretty good man. I couldn’t care less what Limbaugh says any further than he agrees with me which is not universal or even 100% philosophically.
His main ideological thrust of very limited government intrusion, self sufficiency and free markets on the economic side IS the conservative message regardless of what anybody tries to say. However, self governance and free markets only function when people not utterly consumed with narcissistic hedonistic concerns are the preponderance of the citizens.
The decimation of the American family and all the values that it once engendered in it’s future citizens, and that the original vision of the founders depended on, has largely been lost.
That’s why I believe that fiscal conservatism is built upon and is entirely dependent on the voluntary social conservatism of it’s practitioners. In other words it’s over. Adams once said, I’m paraphrasing, that property and it’s continued just accumulation depended on the presence of marriage which you van be certain he defined as one man and one woman for life. Not even he could have possibly known how correct he would turn out to be.
People who would support the termination or prevention of a human life in the name of the avoidance of responsibility are not likely to give a shit about stepping on fellow citizens for money.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
abcd1234 wrote:
<<< If they are unsuccessful, more may side with Rush’s positions/criticisms of Obama, but not necessarily Rush himself.
That’s pretty good man. I couldn’t care less what Limbaugh says any further than he agrees with me which is not universal or even 100% philosophically.
His main ideological thrust of very limited government intrusion, self sufficiency and free markets on the economic side IS the conservative message regardless of what anybody tries to say. However, self governance and free markets only function when people not utterly consumed with narcissistic hedonistic concerns are the preponderance of the citizens.
The decimation of the American family and all the values that it once engendered in it’s future citizens, and that the original vision of the founders depended on, has largely been lost.
That’s why I believe that fiscal conservatism is built upon and is entirely dependent on the voluntary social conservatism of it’s practitioners. In other words it’s over. Adams once said, I’m paraphrasing, that property and it’s continued just accumulation depended on the presence of marriage which you van be certain he defined as one man and one woman for life. Not even he could have possibly known how correct he would turn out to be.
People who would support the termination or prevention of a human life in the name of the avoidance of responsibility are not likely to give a shit about stepping on fellow citizens for money.[/quote]
Agreed. But Limbaugh’s concerns about social conservatism are minimal.
Ron Paul: Quite frankly I don’t think [Steele vs. limbaugh] is a relevant debate.
I agree.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
abcd1234 wrote:
<<< If they are unsuccessful, more may side with Rush’s positions/criticisms of Obama, but not necessarily Rush himself.
That’s pretty good man. I couldn’t care less what Limbaugh says any further than he agrees with me which is not universal or even 100% philosophically.
His main ideological thrust of very limited government intrusion, self sufficiency and free markets on the economic side IS the conservative message regardless of what anybody tries to say.
However, self governance and free markets only function when people not utterly consumed with narcissistic hedonistic concerns are the preponderance of the citizens.
The decimation of the American family and all the values that it once engendered in it’s future citizens, and that the original vision of the founders depended on, has largely been lost.
That’s why I believe that fiscal conservatism is built upon and is entirely dependent on the voluntary social conservatism of it’s practitioners. In other words it’s over. Adams once said, I’m paraphrasing, that property and it’s continued just accumulation depended on the presence of marriage which you van be certain he defined as one man and one woman for life. Not even he could have possibly known how correct he would turn out to be.
People who would support the termination or prevention of a human life in the name of the avoidance of responsibility are not likely to give a shit about stepping on fellow citizens for money.
Agreed. But Limbaugh’s concerns about social conservatism are minimal.[/quote]
His rhetoric on social issues is somewhat there, but yes, his driving concern is economics which I hold as symptomatic only.
3 Divorces and no kids doesn’t exactly lend credibility either. However, what he does talk about I usually agree with if today’s show is any indication. Though I can see myself agreeing, with qualifications quite a bit.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
abcd1234 wrote:
<<< If they are unsuccessful, more may side with Rush’s positions/criticisms of Obama, but not necessarily Rush himself.
That’s pretty good man. I couldn’t care less what Limbaugh says any further than he agrees with me which is not universal or even 100% philosophically.
His main ideological thrust of very limited government intrusion, self sufficiency and free markets on the economic side IS the conservative message regardless of what anybody tries to say. However, self governance and free markets only function when people not utterly consumed with narcissistic hedonistic concerns are the preponderance of the citizens.
The decimation of the American family and all the values that it once engendered in it’s future citizens, and that the original vision of the founders depended on, has largely been lost.
That’s why I believe that fiscal conservatism is built upon and is entirely dependent on the voluntary social conservatism of it’s practitioners. In other words it’s over.
Adams once said, I’m paraphrasing, that property and it’s continued just accumulation depended on the presence of marriage which you van be certain he defined as one man and one woman for life. Not even he could have possibly known how correct he would turn out to be.
People who would support the termination or prevention of a human life in the name of the avoidance of responsibility are not likely to give a shit about stepping on fellow citizens for money.[/quote]
Good post.