Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Yet Another Politics ThreadFollow

#1 Nov 11 2005 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Can't claim you weren't warned.

So I'm off driving to lunch and flip on the AM radio and there's Rush Limbaugh ******** as per usual. But not about the Democrats this time. No, he's ******** about the twenty-four-odd Republicans who voted against the House spending bill being pushed by the GOP. Things I learned:

  • There is no such thing as a moderate. If you do not stick with the Republican agenda, you are a liberal
  • Even if you have your own ideas, when it comes down to voting, you vote for the Republican Agenda otherwise you are betraying your party
  • These so called "moderate Republicans" only used the party to get into power and now that they see Bush as weak, are stabbing him in the back to appease the Left
  • Rush knows of many of these "Rhino Republicans" (why 'rhino' is his word for false, I dunno) including John McCain, Olympia Snow and about fifty more he could name. I had to admit, the McCarthy-ness of that made me laugh

  • I missed the end of this particular bit but I'd be real suprised if (especially given the use of McCain's name) the Republican support of the anti-torture bill wasn't part of this little diatribe.

    Now, I don't want to overstate this. I'm well aware that Mr. Limbaugh is a commentator and show host, not a member of the government or anything. But I did find the backlash against those who don't "fall in line" interesting. Maybe it's because I associate with the other team and the Democrats are, for better or worse, a collection of the "Not a Republican"s moreso than a single solidified unit. I see that 18% of the Democrats in the House voted against the Eminent Domain bill and say "Meh." It doesn't mean there's a dark agenda, it doesn't mean the Left is out to steal my house and give it to longhairs and Welfare Negroes, it doesn't mean they need to be chastised for not voting the same as the other 82% -- it means that 18% had a different opinion and voted on it. Bully for them. I'd be more worried if they all voted in a solid, unthinking bloc. Moderate Democrats have already said they won't support a filibuster for the Supreme Court appointment. Good. I can't speak for every Senator but I'd hope the bulk of them will respect that.

    McCain & Co solidify Right wing support for the torture bill (I call it that for ease of use, if your argument has to rely on me saying "torture bill" don't bother) and it's because they were "forced to". The moderate Right blocks a spending bill and they are labelled as "Republican liberals" and turncoats. I was somewhat amused last election at attempts to label the Left as the "Intelligensia" or the "Harvard Elite". The premise that looking at a problem in shades of grey rather than Bush's "For us or against us" black & white was a character flaw and something to be ashamed of.

    So many claims that the Left is becoming too extreme and that the Left won't reach out, but why am I seeing so much polarization from the Right? Why not even admit that some Republicans -- real Republicans -- think there's a way beyond the strict economic/social conservative agenda?
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #2 Nov 11 2005 at 4:13 PM Rating: Decent
    RINO

    Republican In Name Only.. I think thats what he's saying anyway. Ive heard that used before.


    #3 Nov 11 2005 at 4:18 PM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    Well, that makes a **** of a lot more sense than comparing them to a large African land mammal Smiley: laugh

    Thanks.
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #4 Nov 11 2005 at 4:24 PM Rating: Decent
    *****
    12,561 posts
    It's because simpletons like Rush Limbaugh couldn't possibly grasp a political system that spans beyond two-party polarization.

    If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd just point and laugh. They'd probably ask him this gem of a question as well..

    "What is more important, sir? Is loyalty to your party, an artificial mechnization of politics, or loyalty to the nation and your duty to carry out wisdom from the chair the people give to you?"

    Rush's answer?

    "Don't be a RINO!"..
    ____________________________
    Blah
    #5 Nov 11 2005 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    Well, I threw into there some of Gbaji's bits from the other day. Not that I assume you hold Gbaji up to be the shining light of Conservatives but I found the same attitude there. When asked why the GOP Senators backing the torture bill were doing so, Gbaji's assertation was that they were railroaded into it by liberal machinations.

    So, I ask, what's your view on the Republican Congressmen dissenting from the "agenda" to block drilling in ANWAR, tax cuts, supporting the torture bill, etc? Is the blanket answer now "They're not really Republicans" or "They were tricked into it" or some other excuse that denies the possibility that there's an actual spectrum of beliefs?
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #6 Nov 11 2005 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
    *****
    12,561 posts
    And on that note...

    http://allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=28;mid=1131741337185759555;num=2
    ____________________________
    Blah
    #7 Nov 11 2005 at 4:53 PM Rating: Good
    Sniping Sweetpea
    *****
    18,461 posts

    **** you for linking to that. **** you!

    As for moderate Republicans, in my experience, they make up quite a large portion of the party. It must be that the far-right-wingers just ***** and complain more.
    ____________________________
    That's the kind of dude
    I was lookin' for
    And yes you'll get slapped
    if you're lookin', ho

    #8 Nov 11 2005 at 4:55 PM Rating: Decent
    *****
    12,561 posts
    Well, you know what they say? Those who have the least to say, speak the loudest.
    ____________________________
    Blah
    #9 Nov 11 2005 at 4:56 PM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    I haven't really gotten into the whole "falsified evidence" bit because there's already investigations underway on it and I can't claim to know exactly what was presented to Congress, how it was presented and what criteria were used to decide which evidence was credible. The argument seems to be that the Administration was picking and chosing sometimes dubious sources for information that told it what it wanted to hear even when other agencies were warning against that information's credibility. Was Congress given the full gamut of everything with all the caveats or was there a filter determining which bits of information were going to be viewed and used as weight in the decision?

    I honestly don't know and until I do and until there's at least some resolution from the investigations, I can't make any statements about it that I feel are informed ones.

    None of which is directly relevant to my original topic except to try to play a game of "Haha you too!"
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #10 Nov 11 2005 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
    *****
    12,561 posts
    No, you're right Joph. I'm very interested in seeing what the investigations uncover. It could very well lead to a complete unraveling of our political system as we know it if the Executive branch can force action from the Legislative branch with filtered intelligence.

    Oh ****, I am of the distinct belief that this country is headed on a crash course to grand civil unrest or war... It's idiots like Limbaugh who accelerate and facilitate the need for a change of order or a government overthrow.

    Sad as it is to say, people blinded by ideology worry me far more than any thug gangster with an assault rifle.
    ____________________________
    Blah
    #11 Nov 11 2005 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
    Quote:
    The argument seems to be that the Administration was picking and chosing sometimes dubious sources for information that told it what it wanted to hear even when other agencies were warning against that information's credibility. Was Congress given the full gamut of everything with all the caveats or was there a filter determining which bits of information were going to be viewed and used as weight in the decision?


    Personally I find it hard to believe that the 100 Senator's of the US dont have TS/SCI clearances with the right accesses to get the info if they wanted it.

    The question is did they take what the Administration said at face value without doing their own bit of research. It isnt like they live and work far from all the Intel Agency's HQ's, or that it would take much more than a phone call to have the director of any of those agencies to come down to the Senate and brief any and all who were cleared.

    If the Bush Admin cherry picked what intel they showed the congress then they definitely should be held to account, however every Senator who voted to go to war without investigating it even a little him/herself has to in my mind shoulder some of the blame.
    #12 Nov 11 2005 at 5:12 PM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    *Shrug*

    Again, no comment until I know more. I knew once Lefein linked that, no one would stick to the original topic Smiley: laugh
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #13 Nov 11 2005 at 5:15 PM Rating: Decent
    Sorry Joph. Rush is pretty much just a tool.
    #14 Nov 11 2005 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
    *****
    12,561 posts
    Well, it wasn't completely off-topic. I just wanted to highlight that blindly following any idea can lead to dramatically weak conclusions.. Which I took as the premise of your OP..

    People like Limbaugh exacerbate the problem because they are popular enough to be given creedence.. (or is it the other way around?) bah!
    ____________________________
    Blah
    #15 Nov 11 2005 at 5:28 PM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    Lefein wrote:
    Which I took as the premise of your OP
    I was more curious about what amount of "sway" people from the Right allow or expect from their elected officals before they're chastised for it or the excuses start flying. The examples I cited suggest "very little" but I admit that both come from a rather extreme part of the spectrum Smiley: laugh
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #16 Nov 11 2005 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
    ***
    3,101 posts
    Lefein wrote:
    Rush Limbaugh couldn't possibly grasp a political system that spans beyond two-party polarization.




    Painkillers ... It's a **** of a drug.
    ____________________________
    Me!
    #17 Nov 11 2005 at 8:28 PM Rating: Good
    Encyclopedia
    ******
    31,947 posts
    I think your original question is a bit unfair though Joph. On the one hand, you're condemning politically polarizing commentators like Rush, but then essentially doing the same thing by implying that if one disagrees with the 24 Republicans voting against the "party line" then one is in league with Rush and agrees with him on all things political.


    Guess what? Politicians vote on individual issues based on a number of things. Yes. Party agenda is one. But their own constituency is another. In the case of the Senate, that means the issues of the state they represent. That's not always going to jibe along party lines. In fact, I'd be surprised if it did.

    And there's always just plain old personal opinion. Not everyone votes in lockstep, on either side of the political fence.


    Again though, you are presenting an unfair choice. If I'm against those 24, then I'm saying that every republican should vote in lockstep, and I'm made out to be a goosesteeping fascist. If I'm ok with it, then whamo! "Even you don't believe your own party's agenda!". I've seen both arguments enough time on this forum to know that it's a no win argument Joph.


    As to some of my previous statements about Democrats "forcing" Republicans to vote various ways. I still stand by those. I honestly believe that most of the polarization in our politics right now is coming from the left, not the right. I get a **** of a lot more "you're with us or against us" impression from liberals right now then conservatives. The sheer number of times I've been called names on this forum alone purely for *not* slamming every single action taken by republicans, or joining in on the Bush bashing is astounding. How can you think that doesn't polarize the politics?

    Heck. The very fact that you think it's a big deal that 24 republicans voted differently is a pretty good indicator of this. Yeah. I know you're talking about Rush's response, but you're *also* feeding the same kind of thought. Sure. Folks like Rush go off about how some republicans don't "toe the line", but just as many Liberals crow about the same thing when it happens as well. It's not like this is all happening in a vaccume.
    ____________________________
    King Nobby wrote:
    More words please
    #18 Nov 11 2005 at 9:52 PM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    gbaji wrote:
    Again though, you are presenting an unfair choice. If I'm against those 24, then I'm saying that every republican should vote in lockstep, and I'm made out to be a goosesteeping fascist. If I'm ok with it, then whamo! "Even you don't believe your own party's agenda!". I've seen both arguments enough time on this forum to know that it's a no win argument Joph.
    Well, yes. Because those arguments are usually coming from you, Mr. "If you disagree with Capital Punishment, you don't ever want to revamp the Judicial System" and other such binary arguments Smiley: laugh

    Trust me, you're in little danger of anyone here believing you're not a solid Right wing partisan.

    Quote:
    How can you think that doesn't polarize the politics?
    I'm not going to bother trying to argue with your own experiences of how often you think you're unfairly targetted by evi liberals, but I think it's safe to say that no one here has a (self proclaimed) audience of twenty million.

    I dunno, do I? Alla? Has this thread hit the 20,000,000 hit point yet? Maybe it's time for me to work on a book deal.
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #19 Nov 11 2005 at 10:11 PM Rating: Good
    Encyclopedia
    ******
    31,947 posts
    Jophiel wrote:
    gbaji wrote:
    Again though, you are presenting an unfair choice. If I'm against those 24, then I'm saying that every republican should vote in lockstep, and I'm made out to be a goosesteeping fascist. If I'm ok with it, then whamo! "Even you don't believe your own party's agenda!". I've seen both arguments enough time on this forum to know that it's a no win argument Joph.
    Well, yes. Because those arguments are usually coming from you, Mr. "If you disagree with Capital Punishment, you don't ever want to revamp the Judicial System" and other such binary arguments


    Which is really strange though Joph. Since I'm usually the guy responding to such binary arguments and pointing out their flaws, not the other way around...

    And when I do, I'm labeled as hard-core right winger boy. Funny that.

    Quote:
    Trust me, you're in little danger of anyone here believing you're not a solid Right wing partisan.


    Case in point. You assume because I respond to posts critical of the current administration and point out the flaws within them that I'm the one polarizing the issue and adopting a hard core position.

    I see it exactly the opposite. I'm responding to what I see as polarizing and in some cases ridiculous arguments. And what's so amazingly amusing is that I did the exact same thing when Clinton was in office. And I was labeled a Liberal Hippie on the boards back then...

    So yeah. It's not as cut and dried as you might think.

    Quote:
    How can you think that doesn't polarize the politics?
    I'm not going to bother trying to argue with your own experiences of how often you think you're unfairly targetted by evi liberals, but I think it's safe to say that no one here has a (self proclaimed) audience of twenty million.[/quote]

    Um. But you're just parroting what you've heard in other sources Joph. What we see posted here is a microcosim of the arguments going on elsewhere. Just because this thread doesn't have a viewership of 20 million doesn't mean that the opinions you express here aren't common opinions out there in the "real world".
    ____________________________
    King Nobby wrote:
    More words please
    #20 Nov 11 2005 at 10:27 PM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    gbaji wrote:
    Which is really strange though Joph. Since I'm usually the guy responding to such binary arguments and pointing out their flaws, not the other way around...
    I doubt many here would agree with that, but if it makes you happy...
    Quote:
    And what's so amazingly amusing is that I did the exact same thing when Clinton was in office. And I was labeled a Liberal Hippie on the boards back then...
    Again, if you like to think so. You oft point to this chapter in your life that no one from the forums at that time can remember in the least. But then, if you need to point to an unremembered incident in 1999 to say you're not partisan, you might want to rethink your argument.

    Quote:
    Um. But you're just parroting what you've heard in other sources Joph. What we see posted here is a microcosim of the arguments going on elsewhere. Just because this thread doesn't have a viewership of 20 million doesn't mean that the opinions you express here aren't common opinions out there in the "real world".
    Why gosh, Mister! I never did think of ever going out into this "real world" and talkin' to them there live folk! Golly! All of my interaction with mankind's been right here on this dang ole forum! Why, I'm gonna go on out there right now! This is gonna be swell! Thanks!

    ...

    It was cold outside. ***** that. Your experience obviously drives you to say they are. My experiences tell me yours are full of it. Given lack of non-anecdotal data, I guess our experiences will just have to meet on the playground and beat one another up Smiley: rolleyes

    Edited, Fri Nov 11 22:45:15 2005 by Jophiel
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #21 Nov 12 2005 at 10:13 AM Rating: Default
    ***
    2,847 posts
    These so called "moderate Republicans" only used the party to get into power and now that they see Bush as weak, are stabbing him in the back to appease the Left
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    no.

    they are not trying to appease the left. it is not just moderate republicans either. a couple hard core republicans refused offers to have Bush campaign for them.

    they are trying to put as much distance between themselves and this addministraition as possible in an attemppt to save as many voters as possible as now, even republican polls are showing a severe drop in confidence in the agenda of this addministraition.

    they couldnt give two spits about the left.

    they are running like rats from a sinking ship. a ship THEY BUILT. for decades they have been having wet dreams about a republican president, with a republican majority in the house and senate. their dream came true. its funny how reality is never as pleasent as a fantasy. their dream is turning into a nightmarish quagmire. fence sitters are leaning to the left. republicans are switching partys.

    and the worst part. America. America has fallen in stature from a shinning night, to a third world tyrant. over 2 thirds of the worlds leaders have openly disfavorable openions of this country, and the vast majority of people all over the world, including our closest allies, have a very negative view of this once great country.

    it is a sad day when a thug like Chavez can get more political allies in a trade agreement than the most powerfull country in the world. if you dont think that was a MAJOR slap in the face to this addmninistraition, then you really do not understand politics at all.

    we no longer lead. we dictate. and the peasants all over the world are revolting.

    the republican dream, the one where they have the finale word and finally get this country streightened out from the mess the liberals have made it.....is turning into that pizza delivery girl who calls the cops instead of giving you head like you read she would in your **** magazine. reality. it is catching up with them.

    if there is any justice in this world, there will be war crimes trials and trials for treason for many in this addministraition.

    there isnt though. so we have to satisfy ourselves with the reality that MABE, MABE, America has learned a painfull lesson. we are not a RED country, or a BLUE country, we are a red, white AND blue country, and we cannot function any other way. mabe we have learned the far right, and the far left are just two sins, and leading from the middle is as close to rightious as we will ever get.

    or, mabe they will find a way to blame it on the pinko, commie left, and triatiors within their own party, like most dictators do when in denial.
    ____________________________
    power lies within shadows
    #22 Nov 12 2005 at 10:25 AM Rating: Decent
    Scholar
    ****
    5,372 posts
    Quote:
    Since I'm usually the guy responding to such binary arguments and pointing out their flaws, not the other way around...


    Like the right (or not) of teens to patient confidetiality disucssion?
    ____________________________
    Crosscontinuum Copulation Diety of The Great Enigma
    Reply To Thread

    Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

     

    Recent Visitors: 33 All times are in CST
    Almalieque, Bijou, Anonymous Guests (31)