My Republican Friends (page 8)

AllTimeJeff

http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?/article/pat_robertson_rush_limbaugh_haiti_comments_draw_fire_0113200932657325/

(click on the link to go to the webpage which embeds the audio of Rush being himself)

(Rush Limbaugh enters the room).

Did anyone else feel a chill?

On his radio program Wednesday morning, Rusty said that President Barack Obama and company would use Haiti to get closer to the “light-skinned and dark-skinned black [communities] in this country” while adding that the U.S. has “already donated to Haiti. It’s called the U.S. income tax.”

Listen to excerpts here and here.

If you were wondering who would be so cynical as to suggest that a president would use a monumental tragedy to gain support amongst a group of voters who already overwhelmingly support him--to the tune of 89 percent who view him favorably, natch--well, now you have your answer.

There’s perhaps a point to be made about private organizations and individuals helping out on their own. But, of course, local churches and government have been helping each other out since Katrina hit. It’s not like they have to be mutually exclusive or anything.

But hey, why deal with subtleties when canned outrage will

Farkel

ATJeff,

:but did you seriously compare Jefferson to Limbaugh?

Did you seriously intend to set up a straw man here and think I would let it slip by? The argument was about calling someone an "agitator" and I pointed out that Jefferson was probably called worse than that by George III. YOU tried to make a big point by calling Limbaugh one. I don't consider agitators that big of a deal. MLK was an agitator, you know. Strictly as mere agitators go, Limbaugh has some good company, whether you like him or not.

Jeff, virtually NO ONE is going to read what you and others wrote about how wrong/bad/evil Limbaugh is and then say, "well, I used to love Limbaugh, but now I've seen the light and hate him." By the same token, NO ONE is going to read what I and others say about Limbaugh and then say, "well, I used to despise Limbaugh, but now I've seen the light and love him."

Let's not waste our time on useless dialogue over a radio guy, then. It goes nowhere and convinces no one of anything.

Farkel

journey-on

Sorry, ATJ. Guess I'm not hearing what you're hearing. You probably shut your ears off before you heard the whole thing.

JimmyPage

I used to listen to Rush all the time and still hear him about 5 or 6 hours a year. He's TOO much of a Republican for me, though. I'm an independent, not a Party idealogue.

(((genuine sigh of relief... much love for Farkel)))

AllTimeJeff

Sounds good Farkel. Being an agitator is good when you are fighting for civil rights or the freedom of your country. If Rush stuck to limited government, that would be fine. Anyone can listen to him and see whether his schtick matches how he likes to portray himself. I am sure that light skinned blacks, dark skinned blacks and the gay and lesbian community would feel differently.

No straw man was trying to be made here. Rush is a card carrying member of the right wing talking heads, he is their leader imo.

From that point of view however, agitators on both sides would certainly serve a useful purpose, including those that are insisting that universal health care should be a moral imperative in this country. That is some agitation I can get behind.

AllTimeJeff

Journey on, we all listen and like what we like. I listened to all of it. I invite anyone to do the same. He said what he said, and I consider what he said racist.

I am not calling listeners of Rush, or you Journey on, racist, but Rush absolutely spews racist politics.

journey-on

This was what I was talking about, JimmyPage, on one of your threads. Don't put people in small boxes. All conservatives are not Repubs. I'm a moderate. I usually vote Repub on national issues, but sometimes I vote Dem in local or state matters. I wish there was a real viable 3rd party.

JimmyPage

I agree. We should vote our hearts on issues, not just tow the party line. I am still anti-abortion myself. But not militantly.

worldtraveller

Rush et al embarrass themselves the minute they open their mouths. Our talk radio is not so intolerant. But I don't listen to talk radio as a whole. I am an oldies radio fan. I do ocassionally listen to Progressive radio out of Seattle, and KGO out of San Francisco at night. I prefer Sirius radio channel 6,7,8 and 100.

As far as accusing me as a liberal. You say liberal as if it's bad. I am proud to be a Progressive Conservative.

So (liberal) you can (liberal) call me (liberal) a liberal as many (liberal) times you (liberal) wish. You have no idea who I am (liberal).

I do believe (liberal) in the freedom to (liberal) choose. I DO NOT (liberal) believe in bank (liberal) G.M. bailouts.

Oh and (liberal) this is just a blog on the net and no one really cares. Relax ppl. I do believe in freedom of speech . Good night.

beksbks

I agree with everything Biz has said. I guess it comes down to the HCR PLAN that is adopted. I honest to goodness cannot understand the complete blind eye the Dems have turned to Tort reform or allowing insurers to compete within a national market. It smacks of patronage and the Obama administration has really come across as a non-transparent, back room, Chicago-style deal maker with unions, paid off Senators and other special interests.

See, you almost had a discussion worthy post right there. Then you had to add that last line of nastiness. It's gobbledygook, it means nothing, and frankly we've heard it a hundred times.

I'll go for it anyway. I am all for Tort reform. To a point. The people have to have recourse, and the fear of it has to be there from the other side. There are currently so many drug companies that have knowingly kept questionable products on the market, or mismarketed them, it's scary. Look in to Pfizer, Yaz, Tylenol, just to name a few. Yaz and Tylenol are the actual drug name, and Pfizer has several different drugs at issue.

As for insurance crossing state lines, I have heard a couple of discussion on this point, and it appears one of the negatives is that states have different laws regulating health insurance companies. Opening it up across state lines could conflict. I would have to explore more of exactly what the ramifications might be, but it seems like it could be a problem. Coming from a state that tends to have more stringent laws on that sort of thing, and glad of it.

I'm not even sure anymore exactly what is in the current bill, but I am against forcing participation if there is no public option. And I don't like the idea of subsidies for those who can't afford it, because that is just another boon for the insurance companies at the tax payers expense. Insurance companies are just a middle man, I see no reason whatsoever why they should make huge profits for what they "do". It's the participants that spread the risk, they merely handle the paperwork.

My Republican Friends

Share this