POL What's Up With Limbaugh?

FarmerJohn

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Do any of you TB2Kers have an explanation or opinion about what's going on with Rush Limbaugh's 'below the belt' attack on Colin Powell?

I understand that the GOP is split. The Limbaugh faction is supported by former VP Dick Cheney, former G. W. Bush political advisor Carl Rove, current GOP chairman Michael Steele (and others). The Powell faction is supported by former Homeland Security Chief Thomas Ridge, former FBI Director Robert Mueller (and others).

Recent polls indicate that Colin Powell's approval rating is greater than those of Limbaugh and Cheney combined. Limbaugh has made socialism appealing to many by associating it with the popular president Obama. Limbaugh, Cheney, Rove et. al. are clearly not stupid. What gives here? Do they want to make gains in the 2010 congressional elections and have a chance at the White House in 2012?

I've looked at a number of recent Limbaugh videos. Could he have early symptoms of Parkinson's disease? I've noticed that he flails around a lot. Does Parkinson's affect the logical systems of the brain? That would be so ironic after his vicious attacks on Michael J Fox....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nR68lqbxs8

FJ
 

Ender

Inactive
I understand that the GOP is split. The Limbaugh faction is supported by former VP Dick Cheney, former G. W. Bush political advisor Carl Rove, current GOP chairman Michael Steele (and others). The Powell faction is supported by former Homeland Security Chief Thomas Ridge, former FBI Director Robert Mueller (and others).

Don't know about Parkinson's FJ, but I DO know that Bush, Cheney et al are directly involved with the Mega Corporations that have been taking over the ME & S. America, since the 60's.

These corps finance the 3rd world elites, starve the masses, bankrupt the countries, and then control them.

Consequence? Rebels which become terrorists.

There is huge money involved and Limbaugh has been pushing their agenda for a long time.
 

Amaryllis

Inactive
It's simple. You can't entice people to your party by offering them more of what the other party is offering. You have to stick by your principles. In time people will get enough of marxism, and there will still be an alternative to it. Hopefully.
 

Squid

Veteran Member
Nice posting the DNC's talking point for the month.

Colin Powell is the liberal's favorite Republican. He has a military background most liberals DO NOT. He spends more time attacking conservatives than liberals.

Geez for you liberal weenies what's not to like, heck why have 2 parties why not just all sign into THE ONE PARTY and we can all vote 100 % on each election.

Snicker snicker...

mr john so-called farmer wonder what you and your friends in the dying media think about an assertion that a flailing Demo like say the speaker of the house or say the VP may have Parkison's.

These questions look more like your spouting from the political class group think than any serious inquiry.
 

fairbanksb

Freedom Isn't Free
If the GOP's idea of making gains is siding with Powell, I say screw'em. No RINO get my vote, which includes most of the current crop.
 

FarmerJohn

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I understand that Limbaugh, et. al. consider Democrats to be marxists. Do they consider moderate GOPers in the Colin Powell mold to be marxists as well? I'm puzzled by Limbaugh's successful efforts to make marxism attractive. They are opposed to the moderate Colin Powell and yet they make the kind of 'below the belt' attack that builds support for their so-called enemy.

FJ
 

Grantbo

Membership Revoked
Limbaugh has made socialism appealing to many by associating it with the popular president Obama.

No matter what Rush say's you dirty liberals will continue to slander him. I always find it amusing to read posts from dirty liberals who seem to think that Repubs can beat the Dems if they just become more like them. They know that conservatism works when ever it's been tried (ie Reagan), and so must demonize people like Rush because he is a threat to their power.
 

Ravekid

Veteran Member
I started listening to Rush back in the early-mid 90s. When I went away to college, Rush's show wasn't really something I made an effort to listen to. Every now and then I would listen. After Bush won, I felt that Rush was too cozy to big business Bush. Since his show is national, I really wonder his thoughts on these "public-private" partnerships where public businesses (malls, sport centers, etc.) are built with tax dollars while some CEO gets a huge payday. He did go against Bush with illegal immigration and the bailout of Wall Street, but I still think he was too friendly with Bush, who wasn't much of an individual freedom conservative if you ask me. Hell, after calling him a liberal for the TARP idea, he still got invited, and went, to eat with Bush during his last days at the Whitehouse.

I think Rush is mostly a conservative person, but he is a hypocritical conservative with his views on drug laws and such. Not only that, I am sure he hasn't lived the most "moral" of life when it comes to pre-marital sex and such, seeing he was a rich, single guy for so long.

Last year I started listening more. Of course his entire focus was Obama v. Clinton, and his show started to become a lot more funnier than it had been in years past. I continue to listen when I can, though I don't make it a point to listen. I think Rush is right on the current state of the Republican party.

Half the "conservative" Republicans are anything but. They are political hacks doing whatever they can to keep their gravy train $$$$ going. So many "Republicans" here in Indiana support giving big business taxpayer money and the like...it is sickening. These Republicans actually _want_ a large government, at all levels. They may not want as big as government as Democrats, but the difference really isn't that much. These Republicans are McCain, Powell, and I would put Rove, Bush, and others in that camp. The other camp are those who want to limit government, were against the corporate bailouts, etc.. Where Rush really lands is beyond me. As far as the Colin Powell thing, he supported Obama...so why is he even considered a Republican?
 

puzzler

Contributing Member
I do not understand how attacks against marxism makes it more appealing. It must be a liberal-minded thing.
 

BigBadBossyDog

Membership Revoked
Oh, Farmer, Oh, Ender: PFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTT.

As usual, Rush is correct. He is asking why people are so fond of the D party since the R party has been much more favorable toward minorities. Clarence Thomas, all the blacks, latinos, women W appointed, and still those minorities hate R's and love D's. Why, he's asking.

He actually answered his own question when he said latinos should have voted in droves for the R party because of the R stand on amnesty for illegal aliens. Maybe that should have been reason for minorities to vote R, but it's the main reason mainstream R's didn't vote R.

I don't know what it will take and I don't see a leader on the horizon. It may take a lot more decline of America. Mass starvation and homelessness. The public believed the media when they were told W ruined America and they fell for the hope n' change bullcrap. The only way it can turn around will be when the voting public sees that all that hope n' change isn't working.

Bottom line: There's nothing wrong with Rush.
 
Limbaugh has made socialism appealing to many by associating it with the popular president Obama.

No matter what Rush say's you dirty liberals will continue to slander him. I always find it amusing to read posts from dirty liberals who seem to think that Repubs can beat the Dems if they just become more like them. They know that conservatism works when ever it's been tried (ie Reagan), and so must demonize people like Rush because he is a threat to their power.

+1
 

FarmerJohn

Has No Life - Lives on TB
mr john so-called farmer wonder what you and your friends in the dying media think about an assertion that a flailing Demo like say the speaker of the house or say the VP may have Parkison's.

Dear Squid, I've not read any suggestion anywhere that Limbaugh has Parkinson's. I've just watched the video that I posted in the thread starter. It looks to me like he's thrashing around in a nearly uncontrolable way. I have seen clips elsewhere of him addressing an adoring crowd and he did the same thing. I assumed it was for dramatic purposes. Now I'm wondering if it's uncontrolable.

House Speaker Pelosi may 'flail' (act in an ineffective manner) but she does not appear to have overt physical symptoms of the kind that I mentioned above.

Does anyone have any archival clips of Limbaugh?

FJ
 

Satanta

Stone Cold Crazy
_______________
Dear Squid, I've not read any suggestion anywhere that Limbaugh has Parkinson's. I've just watched the video that I posted in the thread starter. It looks to me like he's thrashing around in a nearly uncontrolable way. I have seen clips elsewhere of him addressing an adoring crowd and he did the same thing. I assumed it was for dramatic purposes. Now I'm wondering if it's uncontrolable.

House Speaker Pelosi may 'flail' (act in an ineffective manner) but she does not appear to have overt physical symptoms of the kind that I mentioned above.

Does anyone have any archival clips of Limbaugh?

FJ

Neither does he. When he is speaking emphatically he is flailing and when he pauses so does the flailing. My grandmother and many older people I know had Parkinsons and there was no 'sitting still' so why don't you try a different angle because this one makes you read like an idiot.

ETA: and you as well as anyone else can go look at old clips of Limbaugh on Youtube. The one you posted is an archival clips as it was not being beamd from him to you at the moment it happened.
 

The Freeholder

Inactive
Not below the belt, but a legitimate attack on a RINO that ought to follow Arlyn Spector to the Dems. I've given up on the party for now, but if they'd run off Powell et al I might just come back for a visit.

And if you take that cutely done poll apart, you'll find that your statement re: popularity only holds true when you include the numbers from Democrats. Look at the Republican-only numbers, and it's a statistical dead heat. And since Limbaugh's distaste for nearly all Democrats is something past well-known, I somehow don't feel that he really cares what they think about him--unlike Powell.

Have I fed the troll enough today?
 

BigBadBossyDog

Membership Revoked
Dear Squid, I've not read any suggestion anywhere that Limbaugh has Parkinson's. I've just watched the video that I posted in the thread starter. It looks to me like he's thrashing around in a nearly uncontrolable way. I have seen clips elsewhere of him addressing an adoring crowd and he did the same thing. I assumed it was for dramatic purposes. Now I'm wondering if it's uncontrolable.

House Speaker Pelosi may 'flail' (act in an ineffective manner) but she does not appear to have overt physical symptoms of the kind that I mentioned above.

Does anyone have any archival clips of Limbaugh?

FJ

You're seeing things. Hallucinating, perhaps? Whatever it is, you can put it down now. Rush is NOT trashing or flailing.
 

workerbee

* Winter is Coming *
Powell is a democrat. He voted for Obama.

Tom Ridge is democrat light, as is McCain.

Rush represents the consevative base that has gone by the wayside, Bush's medicare rx coverage + bailout are examples of how Republicans have screwed their base.

Affirmative action = reverse discrimination.

Clarence Thomas sees this, Colin Powell does not.

Conservatism, not the fake Rhino stuff, we're about doing it on your own, small government, not handouts, bailouts, nanny government = big government.

Conservatism knows that the founding fathers believed We the People know better than Nanny government. That anything the government "gives" you also gives the government the power to take it away.

The founding fathers did their best to provide checks/balances in our three branches of government, so that the powers were split and balanced, that no one branch could yeild more power than the other.

The problem we have with this new Supreme Court justice nominee is that she believes justices make law.
This is unconstitutional and a blatant affront to what our founding fathers intended. The audacity of this power grab is soo in your face, we should all be alarmed.

But then again, I'm a ditto head.
 

Ender

Inactive
Colin Powell is the liberal's favorite Republican. He has a military background most liberals DO NOT. He spends more time attacking conservatives than liberals.

Geez for you liberal weenies what's not to like, heck why have 2 parties why not just all sign into THE ONE PARTY and we can all vote 100 % on each election.

Snicker snicker...

Where Have you been squid?

Since when have we had more than ONE party dictating the US of A? There are no real differences between either current parties and anyone with 1/2 a brain cell can see that.

Snicker...snicker.......
 

Ender

Inactive
This article is about the Rebulican party that my grandfather told me about.


America’s Anti-Militarist Heritage

by George C. Leef

Americans don’t have much historical memory anymore. That isn’t just because of the dumbing down of the educational system and the fact that most young people read very little on their own. It’s because most of what little they do hear about our history is colored by statist theology.

But if you talk to some older Americans – people in their 70s and 80s – you will encounter a few who know some important things. First, they know that there was widespread opposition to the wars the United States fought in the 20th century; and second, they know that most of the opposition to war came from the “Right.” That is, “liberals” were the ones champing at the bit to send American forces into combat and “conservatives” were the ones saying, “Let’s just mind our own business.”

Bill Kauffman’s book Ain’t My America is intended to drive that point home. His subtitle lets the reader know where he’s going – the long, noble history of anti-war conservatism and middle-American anti-imperialism. This isn’t just a dry and pedantic bit of historiography, though. Kauffman writes with an angry edge because he’s sick and tired of the politicians – left, right, and center – who just can’t resist the calls for sending American troops into combat all around the globe. He wants to kindle the embers of an old fire – the deep conviction among Americans on the political Right that keeping America’s national nose out of foreign wars is morally and politically the intelligent policy. Americans shouldn’t start wars. They shouldn’t participate in those already begun. They should just mind their own business! That should be the stance of the “Right” even more than of the “Left.”

When Americans read about their history, they learn the results of the numerous wars they’ve been in, but almost never is any space devoted to the decisions to get into them. Wars don’t just break out spontaneously. Government officials have to act, but what of those, in and out of government, who didn’t want to get involved? Only if you look deeply will you find anything about the people who opposed America’s wars. Kauffman has done exactly that. In Ain’t My America, he shows that there was opposition to every one of America’s foreign wars, mostly from small-town, freedom-loving folks whose chief demand of the government was that it respect their rights.
The War of 1812

Although I daresay that I know a good deal more about American history than most people, I was surprised by many of the facts Kauffman presents. I had not known that Daniel Webster was an opponent of the War of 1812. The great orator said at the time,

Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life itself, not when the safety of their country and its liberties may demand the sacrifice, but whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it?

Ah – an early understanding of the truth that politicians usually seek war for their own advantage.
The Mexican War

The Mexican War of 1846–48 was sought by President James K. Polk, who fabricated a border incident to serve as the justification of hostilities – just as Hitler did with the Poles in 1939. Many Americans, however, saw right through his deception and bellicose rhetoric. A little-known member of Congress named Abraham Lincoln was one. Another was Rep. Alexander Stephens of Georgia (later the vice president of the Confederacy), who said, “Fields of blood and carnage may make men brave and heroic, but seldom tend to make nations either good, virtuous, or great.” Lincoln, Stephens, and many others saw the Mexican War as simple aggression by the United States and wanted no part of it.

After the bloodbath of the Civil War, the United States stayed out of foreign conflicts until late in the 19th century. Hawaii was annexed in 1898. While the takeover was bloodless, former president Grover Cleveland said that he was “ashamed of the whole affair.”
The Spanish-American War

Far worse was the Spanish-American War. Whatever might have caused the sinking of the battleship Maine in Havana’s harbor, the McKinley administration instantly seized on it as a casus belli and the country was at war before any opposition could form. After the end of the hostilities, a group of capitalists who wanted peace rather than an empire formed the Anti-Imperialist League. One of them, George Boutwell, criticized U.S. involvement in the Philippines, where American troops were fighting nationalist guerillas:

Is it wise and just for us, as a nation, to make war for the seizure and governance of distant lands, occupied by millions of inhabitants who are alien to us in every aspect of life except that we are together members of the same human family?

A great amount of death and suffering would have been avoided if the United States had stayed out of the Philippines, but the expansionists were firmly in charge in Washington. The Anti-Imperialist League was drowned out with jingoistic slogans.

At this point, we meet one of Kauffman’s heroes, Sen. George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, a crusty Republican who wanted to keep out of foreign military adventures. Writing in 1902 about America’s Philippine involvement, Hoar said bitterly,

We crushed the only republic in Asia. We made war on the only Christian people in the East. We vulgarized the American flag. We inflicted torture on unarmed men to extort confessions. We put children to death. We established reconcentration camps. We baffled the aspirations of a people for liberty.

World War I

World War I was a replay of the Spanish-American War, but on a gigantic scale. It was the big-thinking nationalists who insisted on preparing for and eventually entering the war by sending American troops to France. While it is often said that the business class – usually vilified as “merchants of death” – were instrumental in pushing the nation into a war that had no bearing on Americans at all, Kauffman shows that many businessmen were against President Wilson’s determination to participate in the carnage in Europe. They foresaw that war would bring not only death and destruction, but also regimentation and high taxes.

Henry Ford was one voice for peace and sanity. Prior to Wilson’s victory over the pacifists with the April 1917 declaration of war, he wrote,
For months, the people of the United States have had fear pounded into their brains by magazines, newspapers and motion pictures. No enemy has been pointed out. All the wild cry for the spending of billions, the piling up of armaments and the saddling of the country with a military caste has been based on nothing but fiction.

America’s foremost capitalist wasn’t alone in wanting peace. Millions of people who liked their government small and saw no glory in war wanted to stay out of “Wilson’s War.” (See my review of Rich Man’s War, Poor Man’s Fight, by Jeanette Keith, in the June 2005 Freedom Daily. The book details the opposition to the war in the South.) Of the 50 House members who voted against war, 33 were Republicans. Only 16 Democrats went against their messianic president.

Wilson got his war. Americans who spoke out against it were imprisoned. Kauffman quotes one South Dakota farmer who got a five-year prison sentence for saying, “It was all foolishness to send our boys over there to get killed by the thousands, all for the sake of Wall Street.” Not all Wall Streeters wanted the war, but most of small town and rural America was opposed. The war was entirely the doing of the nation’s political elite, which looked down its collective nose at the rubes who couldn’t see that America had to fight to save the world.
World War II

In the late 1930s, with the storm clouds of war again building up over Europe and Asia, the same drama was replayed. Conservative, small-town America could see that there would be another war and tried to keep the United States out of it. Kauffman concentrates especially on the America First Committee. “It was not in any way pro-fascist or pro-Nazi, though of course anyone who opposes a war in modern America gets tagged as an enemy symp,” he writes. The America Firsters believed in the libertarian position that the country should be sufficiently armed to repel any attack on it, but stay out of the war unless attacked. Public polling in 1940 showed that about 80 percent of the people agreed. Kauffman doesn’t go into Roosevelt’s machinations to goad the Japanese into attacking, but once the bombs fell on Pearl Harbor, war was inevitable. Once again, the “just leave us alone” instincts of most Americans were trampled upon.
The Cold War

When World War II was finally over, the big-government internationalists couldn’t allow the power they had worked to amass to wither away, so they conjured up the Cold War. By that time, much of the American Right had been lured into the camp of the bellicose, but a few remained to argue against the Truman/Eisenhower policies of confrontation. One was old Herbert Hoover, who opposed committing U.S. troops to NATO and declared that Truman had violated the Constitution by involving the country in the Korean War without a declaration of war by Congress.

Another was Sen. Robert Taft (R-Ohio), who said in a Senate speech in January 1951, “The principal purpose of the foreign policy of the U.S. is to maintain the liberty of our people.” Unfortunately, liberty was far from the minds of most of his colleagues.

Less well known than Hoover and Taft is another Kauffman hero, Howard Buffett, father of the billionaire investor. Howard Buffett was a member of the House from Nebraska in the 1940s and 1950s. He was fervently opposed to militarism, foreign aid of all kinds, and anything that went beyond his vision of a government that just protected life, liberty, and property. Buffett was adamantly opposed to the military draft, which to him was no different from slavery.

With the passing decades, the Right has largely become the pro-war side of the political spectrum and the Left now contains most of the anti-war crowd. There are some exceptions, of course. Republican congressmen Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and John Duncan (R-Tenn.) opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, but most Republicans have fallen into the neocon orbit and believe that the solution to just about anything the United States doesn’t like around the world is to send in American troops. Opposition to military escapades comes mostly from “liberals” but not with much effect. (I wish that Kauffman had pointed out that the problem with leftist opposition to war is that it’s unprincipled. People who favor massive government taxation and control of nearly every other aspect of life are not on firm ground when they say, “Let’s not use military force for anything but self-defense.”)

What Kauffman hopes to see is a revival of anti-war sentiment among those who should be its strongest natural proponents – Americans who want their government small, their taxes low, and no soldiers in body bags. Despite all the propaganda that wanting to avoid war is cowardly, he is optimistic:

It may not be too late for the American Right – for Main Street America in all its conservative neighborliness, its homely yet life-giving blend of the communal and the libertarian – to rediscover the wisdom of its ancestors, who understood that empire is the enemy of the small and war is the enemy of the home.

Bill Kauffman has hit the nail right on the head. It shouldn’t be just the far Left that says “No” to war. There is a strong history of anti-militarism on the Right and it’s time to bring it back to life.

May 27, 2009

George C. Leef [send him mail] is the director of the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy in Raleigh, North Carolina, and book review editor of The Freeman.
 

Txkstew

Veteran Member
Colin Powell is a pusilanious, cowardly, appeaser. I don't see where everyone get's it, that he's some kind of Hero. Obama should have named him as his Vice President. He's all for gun control as well. Sounds like a Democrat to me.
 

workerbee

* Winter is Coming *
This is so fantastic.

While the current government in power is taking control of GM, taking control of the banks, taxing healthcare plans, printing so much $ other governments no longer want to deal in dollars, firing banks execs, screwing the hospitality industry (notably Vegas), enjoying photo ops with Socialist dictators, taking more of your tax dollars to pay for others who refuse to work, alarming many redblooded Americans in flyover country = causing a run on guns/ammo, closing Gitmo without a coherent plan to deal with those pesky jihadis, kissing the ring of the saudi king, our President for YEARS attended a church who says the US military gave black men HIV, and after 9/11 America's chickens have come home to roost, and Goddamn America (its in the bible), that we need to paint our roofs white to help curb global warming, affiliated with Acorn (which is a whole discussion in/of itself), rewards unions and screws bondholders, initiating cap/trade and universal healthcare......

Meanwhile let us talk about how Limbaugh is kicking Powell below the belt.

Didn't Obama laugh about Limbaugh being a 9/11 conspirator?
Didn't he smile when he thought about Limbaugh's kidneys failing?

Give me a freakin break.
 

yinonyavo

Contributing Member
he attacked Powell below the belt!. That shouldn't have done any damage. It's about time people begin to realize that Powell was and is a token. G.bush sr. sent into action, Sotomayor, Souter, and also Powell when there were other very capable generals available. Bush was always trying to be a moderate who would be well loved by the left as well as the center. that is why he goes down in History as a very ineffective President.Powell was not distinguished in the Vietnam war, and we have made him into a figure not deserving of the stature afforded him.
 

workerbee

* Winter is Coming *
Is it mostly true that most libs are not gun owners?

Or maybe you own a gun, but haven't ever fired it?

Just askin'.
 
Last edited:

workerbee

* Winter is Coming *
What's up with Limbaugh?

Like for now, instance?

He points out the double standards.

When Clarence Thomas was confirmed, gold ol' Joe Bidden said he only won because he's black, it's a cynical ploy by Reagan......

Limbaugh has a habit of pointing out the facts; that really pisses off the left.
So they attack him. Not his points.

So like the left.
 

TerriHaute

Hoosier Gardener
I understand that the GOP is split. The Limbaugh faction is supported by former VP Dick Cheney, former G. W. Bush political advisor Carl Rove, current GOP chairman Michael Steele (and others). The Powell faction is supported by former Homeland Security Chief Thomas Ridge, former FBI Director Robert Mueller (and others).

That's a non-sequitur. Rush is not a Republican, he does not claim to be a member of the Republican party, he is an Independent Conservative. Big difference. If there is a "Limbaugh Faction" in the Republican party, Rush had nothing to do with it. Rush just likes to call 'em as he sees 'em, he is an equal opportunity political critic, and a lot of people agree with him. When the Democrats recently started dropping Rush's name here and there in connection with the GOP, it was to try to make him a target - he evidently is causing someone in the White House grief. The whole thing is pretty entertaining, actually. :popcorn1: It's not very smart to pick a fight with someone who is on the radio 3 hours a day and has millions of listeners, especially if you are a weak president.
 

denfoote

Inactive
I have no idea!!

I stopped listening to Rush Windbag just about the time he got off on those drug charges!!!

In fact, it would not surprise me one bit to find out he was back on the junk!!!! :whistle:

Once an addict...
 

Ender

Inactive
Is it mostly true that most libs are not gun owners?

Or maybe you own a gun, but haven't ever fired it?

Just askin'.

Wait.

So if you don't like Limbaugh you're a lib who is against guns? Or at least a weenie who can't fire one?

Quit ASSuming.
 

nomifyle

TB Fanatic
I started listening to Rush back in the early-mid 90s. When I went away to college, Rush's show wasn't really something I made an effort to listen to. Every now and then I would listen. After Bush won, I felt that Rush was too cozy to big business Bush. Since his show is national, I really wonder his thoughts on these "public-private" partnerships where public businesses (malls, sport centers, etc.) are built with tax dollars while some CEO gets a huge payday. He did go against Bush with illegal immigration and the bailout of Wall Street, but I still think he was too friendly with Bush, who wasn't much of an individual freedom conservative if you ask me. Hell, after calling him a liberal for the TARP idea, he still got invited, and went, to eat with Bush during his last days at the Whitehouse.

I think Rush is mostly a conservative person, but he is a hypocritical conservative with his views on drug laws and such. Not only that, I am sure he hasn't lived the most "moral" of life when it comes to pre-marital sex and such, seeing he was a rich, single guy for so long.

Last year I started listening more. Of course his entire focus was Obama v. Clinton, and his show started to become a lot more funnier than it had been in years past. I continue to listen when I can, though I don't make it a point to listen. I think Rush is right on the current state of the Republican party.

Half the "conservative" Republicans are anything but. They are political hacks doing whatever they can to keep their gravy train $$$$ going. So many "Republicans" here in Indiana support giving big business taxpayer money and the like...it is sickening. These Republicans actually _want_ a large government, at all levels. They may not want as big as government as Democrats, but the difference really isn't that much. These Republicans are McCain, Powell, and I would put Rove, Bush, and others in that camp. The other camp are those who want to limit government, were against the corporate bailouts, etc.. Where Rush really lands is beyond me. As far as the Colin Powell thing, he supported Obama...so why is he even considered a Republican?

Ditto

Judy
 

workerbee

* Winter is Coming *
Wait.

So if you don't like Limbaugh you're a lib who is against guns? Or at least a weenie who can't fire one?

Quit ASSuming.

Ender,

I did not mean to make the correlation between the two.
My thought was on liberals in general, and an honest question.
The mistake is mine and I did not mean to parallel the two.

FWIW, in the meatworld there are two very close people to me who are liberal democrats and gun toters.

However, I believe that is the exception.
 

Ender

Inactive
Sorry for the misunderstanding, workerbee.

The Net is sometimes hard to show one's real intent with just the written word.

Ender
 
Top