31 Jan 09
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175379/posts
"Obama went to Capitol Hill to try to persuade Republicans to go bipartisan on this and failed. Limbaugh didn’t even have to go to Capitol Hill to persuade Republicans to stand firm in opposition. And since Obama understands the phrase “I won,” then maybe he can grasp the phrase “I lost.”
"Rush Limbaugh represents the epitomy of the free market system. He's successful, he's very well paid, and people choose freely to listen to him and partake of his product. Obama, the marxist ideolog cannot have or countenance that. It is the antithesis of everything Obama represents and the fundamental change he wants to bring to America. He is scared of and will continue to go after Rush...and ultimately, he will try to do so with the force of law behind him."
"“He challenged their manhood and Obama challenged their manhood”. I don’t know any ‘real man’ that voted for Obama. Obama and his brand of ‘manhood’ cannot be shoved into the ash heap of history soon enough for my tastes. We don’t need more metrosexual men in this country. It’s bad enough already! Most of the real men are in the military and our daughters can’t find suitable ‘breeding stock’ here in our colleges anymore."
Or is it Palin who is the de facto leader of the opposition?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175310/posts
Limbaugh v Palin? What's the RHP Debates Forum analysis?
31 Jan 09
Originally posted by FMFLimbaugh,as always is a successful radio host, and significant formulator and commentator of conservative thought. He is not a political leader. His show responds for the most part to the news of the day, and rarely advocates or promotes actions. I've listened to him for years and he's never even hinted at any interest in political office.
[b]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175379/posts
"Obama went to Capitol Hill to try to persuade Republicans to go bipartisan on this and failed. Limbaugh didn’t even have to go to Capitol Hill to persuade Republicans to stand firm in opposition. And since Obama understands the phrase “I won,” then maybe he can grasp the phrase “I lost.”
"Rush ...[text shortened]... cus/f-news/2175310/posts[/b]
Limbaugh v Palin? What's the RHP Debates Forum analysis?[/b]
Sarah Palin is a politician, is an elected official, and has shown leadership qualities even while being held on a tight leash by the McCain campaign team. She is far more likely to emerge as a party leader than Rush.
The Republican party will have a battle over the next two years over whether the Democrat lite blue bloods will run the party, or whether the party will remain representative of conservatives, and still draw some support of libertarian voters.
Democrat lite is a loser. McCain is symbolic of that, being the epitome of isle crossing, and back stabbing his own party with a lack of conservatively grounded principles. Both Bush's sadly were much the same. The younger Bush's approval ratings were largely so low because his own conservative base finally recognized he wasn't one of them. The left never gave him a chance no matter how much new tone he preached and no matter how much he tried to be bipartisan.
An opposition party in a two party system had better get busy opposing, and presenting solutions of their own, not watered down versions of their opposition. Personally, I liked Sarah Palin's ideas a lot, even though they were held in check by McCain and his handlers. What happens in the next two years, and who emerges from the Republican party as a leader is yet to be seen, but I guarantee it will not be Rush Limbaugh.
Some other possibilities are Bobby Gindal, Mitt Romney, and a dark horse, always a man of ideas, Newt Gingrich. I can't guarantee it, but I don't think conservatives will be fooled again by another Bush or McCain, someone who wants to work with Democrats.
31 Jan 09
Originally posted by normbenignYou're a funny person
Limbaugh,as always is a successful radio host, and significant formulator and commentator of conservative thought. He is not a political leader. His show responds for the most part to the news of the day, and rarely advocates or promotes actions. I've listened to him for years and he's never even hinted at any interest in political office.
Sarah Pal ...[text shortened]... ill be fooled again by another Bush or McCain, someone who wants to work with Democrats.
31 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaRethinking the real word implications of "corporatism" and "capitalism" - including their actual track records and the ever-gaping discrepancy between the rhestoric and the reality - is something that has been going on for years. Presumably you don't read widely or your intellectual curiosity is restricted to stuff that panders to your own particular brand of utopianism.
the "Redefine Corporatism and Capitalism" party.
The "Redefine Corporatism and Capitalism then try to Shoot them down." party.
The thing that I have tried to "shoot down" (perhaps ineffectively, it's for everyone and no one to judge) is the actual result of the simplistic, unworkable ideology you propogate. Sometimes you argue your case well, I reckon. And I express myself too. If you cannot address the concepts - including a degree of rethinking our terms (you and normbenign have odd re-definitions of 'slavery', 'freedom' and 'social responsibility'😉 - concepts that I took time over to present to you, that's fine. Rather too often you resort to dismissive sarcasm. That is your right, I suppose.
The creed you propose results in dysfunction and depredation - the labels I use to describe that dyfunction I have explained in detail. The "capitalism" you talk of is a pipe dream. The "capitalism" I talk of is the reality of "capitalism" all around us, and particularly nasty where I live (much to your test tube tested glee). It is an ideology made unviable by mankind's natural proclivity towards forms of collectivism in perpetual conflict with his natural anti-social, self-destructive, unsustainable greed.
Capitalism has been hijacked by Corporatism, which normbenign has argued persuasively (along with kmax87) to be a dysfunctional form of collectivism. Ultimately, I care not whether you feel shot down or not. There are millions of you in the woodwork, especially there in the USA it seems ("Tax is theft" etc. etc. which makes European adults' eyes roll - yes yes yes, and that makes us all communists, I know), who never have to take responsibility for the dogma you adore because it will never come into being, will never be tested, and can therefore always be "perfect" in your mind. You have been eclipsed, anyway, by normbenign, who argues the WajomaWorld corner far better than you do. He is the one people are grappling with nowadays, while you yap at people's heels and call absolutely every shred of dissent "strawmanism'.
So, you are welcome to your shallow sarcasm if that saves you the bother of really and truly addressing stuff that you don't agree with. Good for you, Wajoma. Well done.
And, er... if the GOP choose Palin in 2012, then Obama gets a second term even if he's the locquatious stuffed-shirt technocrat that I have him pegged as.
31 Jan 09
Originally posted by FMFThe capitalism I talk of exists and is still the driving force of prosperity today even though guvamint bureaucracies, criminals and the dishonest go for a free ride.
Rethinking the real word implications of "corporatism" and "capitalism" - including their actual track records and the ever-gaping discrepancy between the rhestoric and the reality - is something that has been going on for years. Presumably you don't read widely or your intellectual curiosity is restricted to stuff that panders to your own particular brand of ut ...[text shortened]... locquatious stuffed-shirt technocrat that I have him pegged as.
Every time there is a voluntary transaction between two parties every time those two parties recognise that the other has a property unto themselves - physical, intellectual. That is capitalism in action.
The capitalism you talk of is not capitalism, and it is that word that I will continue to defend, and everytime someone speaks of free health care and free education I will continue to defend the word free.
I make no claims of utopia, and have stated so over and over and over, sometimes to the same person.
Freedom is and always will be the absence of force.
I don't believe you are a communist and have never said so, what you are is a collectivist, someone who put's their idea of society above the individual. Whereas I put the sovereignty of the individual above the sovereignty of the horde.
If I can be bothered wading through the poop I'll go back and find your definition of corporatism, a definition so indistinct and wishy washy it could mean anything, and so in terms of definitions...well *shrugs*