It is currently 03/28/24 6:58 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next   Page 2 of 3   [ 72 posts ]
Author Message
PostPosted: 12/27/09 4:21 pm • # 26 

So basically let's assume I am successful in forcing Rush off the air by boycotting eharmony and pfizer and oreck (which I doubt I support anyway).

All of his adherents will disappear and come to think that healthcare is a fundamental human right?

My point in the first place is/was that a large subset of America must agree with him.



Top
  
PostPosted: 12/27/09 4:28 pm • # 27 

In my opinion, the people who think healthcare is not a basic human right, never will (until it's them in need). It appeared to me that people were thinking Rush convinces people to believe that way. It takes a certain mindset to believe such bs. Rush can't make anyone believe it.

As I said, the main people who listen to Rush are people who don't agree with him. The fact that he is popular is not because so many agree. It's because so many of the ones who don't agree give him the attention.



Top
  
PostPosted: 12/27/09 4:39 pm • # 28 
I don't actually believe that Katy. It's the same thing with Palin, Beck, Coulter and all the apparent loons!!!!

There is a WTF factor with me and other detractors *(Hubby for example) that cannot believe that anyone can think anything they say is anything other than ridiculous.

I don't think Rush forms the people's mindset. However, that crap he spews must resonate with a lot of people. I've heard a number of people praise him for telling it like it is.

People all over the country got Palin's and Beck's books for Christmas and I for the life of me cannot figure out why?

Actually. gop I would like to hear your inputs here.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/27/09 4:41 pm • # 29 
Ok, I'll shut up.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/27/09 4:51 pm • # 30 
LOL! I don't want you to shut up. I like hearing what you have to say.

I wanted gop's opinion because he once told me that Palin was good enough to be vice president.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/27/09 5:27 pm • # 31 
Limbaugh actually has a pretty small following of listeners - I read an article that analyzed his audience stats and projected that he has something on the order of 4-5 million unique listeners, which is less than 2% of the population. That's a pretty minor portion of the public. I don't know anybody who listens to his program, and the people I know who are involved in Republican politics all wish he didn't have a platform to attract attention through over-the-top statements. I wouldn't know what he was saying if not for liberals making a big deal out of their outrage over the sounds he makes when he farts.

As for people buying Palin's and Beck's books, I don't know why they do, except that they like them. Palin is working to rebuild her image, and she's directing it at people who are receptive to her, not the Democrats and liberals who clearly aren't impressed by her. It confounds the left, and she is satisfied by that. Although you don't understand it, she has a charisma and leadership qualities that aren't particularly common. Beck is simply another self-promoter who gains approval from some because he's atttacking "the other side," much as Limbaugh, Olbermann, Maddow and countless other self-promoters do.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/28/09 1:52 am • # 32 
Limbaugh has been around for what...a decade or more?? I used to listen to him when he was entertaining, it was easy enough back then, as it is today, to see he was twisting issues to conform to what he was preaching at the time. Then he got ugly when Clinton was elected, and haven't listened to him since.
Bottom line, he's no more influential now then he was then...the mistake was when Steele apologized for putting him in his place. Now, that seems to be a trend among Repubs and imo, shows the narrowing sphere of repub influence if it's Limbaughs base is all that is left of the party.

I wouldn't know what he was saying if not for liberals making a big deal out of their outrage over the sounds he makes when he farts.
Come-on gopqed....Never heard a liberal being forced to apologize for calling the guy out.

As to Palin/Beck....I know some who would call themselves "conservatives" in the office, who wish people like that would just go away. They maintain, and I agree, the party should be smart enough to come-up with competing ideas to help the economy and country.....but seemingly not when those two are headlining the party.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/28/09 2:23 am • # 33 
Katy... I think we're really discussing two sides of the same coin. From what I can tell, we both would like to see the UN living up to its lofty aspirations, but we see the hypocrisy of the member nations. Where we diverge is in the question of keeping it running as opposed to shutting it down. While it may seem that keeping it running accomplishes nothing, shutting it down wouldn't accomplish anything either. In a weird sort of way, the same goes for the Rush, Palin, Hannity, Beck etc... Ignoring them accomplishes nothing and they won't go away and ridiculing them may not do much either. But... I'd rather they fart in public where everybody can have a laugh than force them speak in underground bunkers to fired up crowds who take them seriously.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/28/09 5:42 am • # 34 
Hawkeye- That is part of the game, isn't it? The Wall Street Journal republicans are pretty smart guys and of the manner born or self-made. Think Bush's joking have more base. They know that there are not enough of them to win elections, so they tag team with the social conservatives.

They also use Rush, Beck etc to energize the social conservatives. I don't think it is more than coincidence that Pfizer is Rush's sponser and I wonder if they were prior to health care reform. They can play both sides of the coin. Plausible deniability and all that. Hahaha, he's just an entertainer and pooh pooh him, but they know he and the Becks play a vital role.

I don't think for a minute Palin has unique leadership qualities, but I get what some of her appeal is. There is a strong anti-choice contingent out there. We've all seen them and dealt with them. Here is a woman who had a baby that many would have aborted in similar circumstances. She is much more moral than any woman who believes in choice. Here is a beacon of morality in their eyes. Of course abstinence only is the only way to go. So her daughter couldn't/didn't do it. Her mother would have.

She, btw, is selling a book by knocking the other side, gop. She seems to me to be just another self-promoter, but I don't view her as a beacon of morality.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/09 6:19 am • # 35 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Kath, you identified an interesting and troubling dichotomy in today's "R" politics ~ I'm willing to bet the vast majority of elected "R" politicians know and understand that much of what is being spouted by the Limbaughs/Becks/Palins goes well beyond "legitimate policy difference" and deep into the realm of lies, distortions, and manipulation ~ BUT those lies, distortions, and manipulation serve the R politicians' purpose of creating HUGE controversy [where maybe limited/minimal or maybe even none would otherwise exist] about everything even remotely progressive ~ it all circles back to the R public vow of "defeat/delay everything" ~ and that public vow totally ignores not only great public need [caused primarily by the prior administration's policies] but great public benefit as well ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/28/09 6:54 am • # 36 
I have an additional question for Gop.

Do you really believe that republicans in general believe that health care is a privilege? Are republicans against health care reform in principle or it is the intricacies of the bills presented?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/09 6:58 am • # 37 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
gopqed wrote:
they clearly don't believe in the UDHR, the TAT, and the GC. that puts them on the same side as the worlds greatest war criminals. what wonderful company.

and, by analogy, they have no respect for the rule of law, since all of those treaties are called into our own law (and with equal standing to our own law) through article VI of the constitution.


1) What's the "TAT"?

2) The UDHR is not a treaty and has no legal significance. It's a statement of principles.
the TAT is the Treaty Against Torture, which we ratified during the Clinton administration.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/09 6:59 am • # 38 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
kathyk1024 wrote:

Rush is NOT idiot. He is making a fortune speaking to a willing audience.

What is baffling to us who don't like a word he says is "Why does he have an audience?" "Do people agree with him?"

This for me is also wrapped up in "Why was Bush elected to a second term?" We knew the measure of the man long before the reelection and America reelected him anyway. "Why? "

i agree with Kathy. he is not stupid. he is very crafty. he has spent a LOT of years honing his message.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/28/09 7:47 am • # 39 
Mac - I didn't even bother arguing that. No one will convince me he is STUPID. He is playing his role, and he will play it as long as it's there to play.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/09 7:58 am • # 40 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
What bothers me, a LOT, is that the role that Limbaugh/Beck/Palin et al are playing is not only irresponsible but dangerous as well ~ they offer NOTHING constructive ~ only incite fear and hatred ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/28/09 8:33 am • # 41 

I think that, too, sooz. I also wonder why moderate republicans allow it. They cannot be so vested in power and policy wonk crap that they are willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Not only do they seem to be willing they appear to be helping. Why did Steele have to apologize???

McCain had a glimmer of respect from me when he told that loony woman on the campaign trail that Obama wasn't a Muslim extremist, but a fine man who he just happened to think differently from on certain aspects.

Now we are back to demonization of the man and all this divide language at all levels.



Top
  
PostPosted: 12/28/09 9:50 am • # 42 

Limbaugh just makes statements. He can't explain his thinking. He doesn't understand things that he talks about. He is not an intelligent man. He does have the ability to say things to piss off the left. That really doesn't take a lot of smarts. Yes, he is playing a role and doing it well. I don't see that that equates with intelligence. He is an idiot, imo.

I still don't see that he and the others really have the power that they're being given credit for. They change no ones mind. The ones that agree with them would be pissed off anyway because they hate liberals and the racists amongst them hate blacks and other minorities.

I don't really understand the fear amongst the liberals. This country elected Obama. Are you saying now that people like Rush have converted people? It's the same people who have always been assholes. They are more vocal now because a liberal is in and dems have control. It's really no more than the liberals did during the Bush years. It only seems worse because we disagree with it and because race is also involved.



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/09 4:28 pm • # 43 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/04/09
Posts: 4072
I said here a couple of months ago that I wished the Senate would debate the question Kathy asked. In fact, it is the question Shatner asked and Limbaugh gave his answer to. Should good health be just another commodity to be rented out to those who can afford it? In the United States of America can one be too poor to live? Limbaugh says yes. I think our national answer should be no. And I thnk it would be if the question were honestly debated in those stark terms.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/09 8:17 pm • # 44 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
i agree completely, gramps- but you know what? they will never do that. there is no profit in honest discussions.

i am not being cynical, i am just stating fact. power takes care of it's own until the people DEMAND different. period.

when the people lead, the leaders will follow. until then, they are doing just fine, thanks.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/29/09 4:12 am • # 45 
kathyk1024 wrote:
I have an additional question for Gop.

Do you really believe that republicans in general believe that health care is a privilege? Are republicans against health care reform in principle or it is the intricacies of the bills presented?


Democrats have been painting the Republican opposition to their bill as opposition to reform of the health insurance system, which isn't the case. Republicans see the need for reform and there are even areas where there is common ground with the Democrats. But there are areas of phiolosophical differences about the proper role of government where there is simply a divergence, generally, between the two parties. The "public option" is a proposal which is pretty universally a non-starter among Republicans and a segment of the Demcoratic party, as well.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/29/09 4:31 am • # 46 
But the public option is not in the Senate's version. What is the republican opposition to the current bill that NO ONE voted for?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 4:31 am • # 47 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida
Ahh yes! Tort reform and selling insurance across state lines. The magic GOP solution after decades of not touching health care.
The acronym for the GOP plan is NO.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/29/09 4:44 am • # 48 
kathyk1024 wrote:
But the public option is not in the Senate's version. What is the republican opposition to the current bill that NO ONE voted for?


Well, I've said on a couple of occasions that it's a bill that I probably would have voted for because it's the best compromise that could be hoped for, so I'm probably not the best person to be articulating the opposition to the bill. But there are some things in it that have aroused opposition, such as some of the tax provisions, the mandated purchase of insurance, the shifting of costs from Medicare, the likelihood that there isn't much of anything on the bill that will lower the cost of insurance as a whole across the nation and the questionable fiscal projections.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 4:48 am • # 49 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Rs may "see the need for reform" but only on a superficial level ~ after months of promises of creating an "R alternative plan", what was finally offered was simply the status quo with a few tweaks ~ the Rs are far more willing to fund war than to fund health care ~ no one can or does deny that health care reform is a massive job ~ Calluna has been saying all along that she thinks reform should have been tackled in increments ~ the problem with that is that so much is interconnected ~ and it will never get easier or cheaper ~

I'm curious about your answer to Kathy's first question, gop ~ do Rs [generally] see health care as a privilege? ~ do you?

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/29/09 4:49 am • # 50 
One other general opposition to the bill is that it is seen among Democrats at this point as just the door-opener to their goal of a government-run universal heathcare system. Since that runs counter to the general Republican philosophy of limited government, that alone encourages opposition.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next   Page 2 of 3   [ 72 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.