PDA

View Full Version : Who Said it: A Republican or an Insane Person?


W*GS
04-22-2013, 10:28 AM
I thought it would be fun to play a little game I call “Who said it: A Republican or an Insane Person.”

Now, I know what some of you are thinking, “But most Republicans are insane.” That might be true for some, but let’s just go with declared Republicans up against actual insane people (though not all will have been declared legally insane–but the majority of people would call them crazy).

The rules are simple. I’m going to list a few quotes and you simply have to guess who said it, a Republican or an insane person (a piece of paper and something to write with might help).

Ready?

1) “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them money, I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

2) “I can’t judge you. I have no malice against you and no ribbons for you. But I think that it is time that you all start looking at yourselves, and judging the lie that you live in.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

3) “Feminism is about victimization. Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

4) “Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may not be as strong and as capable as men.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

5) “When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I’m just like, ‘Oh shut up’ I’m so sick of them because they’re always complaining.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

6) “Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

7) ”The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

8) “Abortion is murder. God hates baby-killers.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

9) ”I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

10) “I like this place, everybody treats me nice, some of them are a little crazy though.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

11) “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

12) ”Same-sex marriage, by any name, civil union or otherwise, is the ultimate smashed-mouth in-your-face insult to God Almighty.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

13) “Our children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal and natural and that perhaps they should try it, and that’ll be very soon in our public schools all across the state, beginning in kindergarten.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

14) “I think we have to understand that when tolerance becomes a one-way street, it will lead to cultural suicide.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

15) “You know, we all have our inner demons. I, for one, I can’t speak for you, but I’m on the verge of moral collapse at any time.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

16) “As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

17) “Understand though, that when we talk about exceptions, we talk about rape, incest, health of a woman, life of a woman. Life of the woman is not an exception.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

18) “Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

19) “Everything about the left is perception, manipulation, and lies. Everything. Everything is ‘Wag the Dog.’ Everything is a structured deception.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

20) “The more toppings a man has on his pizza, I believe the more manly he is. A manly man don’t want it piled high with vegetables! He would call that a sissy pizza.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

Blart
04-23-2013, 01:47 AM
Not googling, trying to play legit.


1) “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them money, I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person


A

2) “I can’t judge you. I have no malice against you and no ribbons for you. But I think that it is time that you all start looking at yourselves, and judging the lie that you live in.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

B

3) “Feminism is about victimization. Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

A

4) “Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may not be as strong and as capable as men.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

B

5) “When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I’m just like, ‘Oh shut up’ I’m so sick of them because they’re always complaining.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person


B

6) “Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

B

7) ”The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

A

8) “Abortion is murder. God hates baby-killers.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

B

9) ”I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

A

10) “I like this place, everybody treats me nice, some of them are a little crazy though.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

B

11) “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

A

12) ”Same-sex marriage, by any name, civil union or otherwise, is the ultimate smashed-mouth in-your-face insult to God Almighty.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

A

13) “Our children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal and natural and that perhaps they should try it, and that’ll be very soon in our public schools all across the state, beginning in kindergarten.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

A

14) “I think we have to understand that when tolerance becomes a one-way street, it will lead to cultural suicide.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

A

15) “You know, we all have our inner demons. I, for one, I can’t speak for you, but I’m on the verge of moral collapse at any time.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

A

16) “As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

B

17) “Understand though, that when we talk about exceptions, we talk about rape, incest, health of a woman, life of a woman. Life of the woman is not an exception.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

B

18) “Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

A

19) “Everything about the left is perception, manipulation, and lies. Everything. Everything is ‘Wag the Dog.’ Everything is a structured deception.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person

A

20) “The more toppings a man has on his pizza, I believe the more manly he is. A manly man don’t want it piled high with vegetables! He would call that a sissy pizza.”
A) Republican
B) Insane Person[/QUOTE]

A

baja
04-23-2013, 07:42 AM
All "A"

barryr
04-23-2013, 08:26 AM
In other words, the "B" are liberals.

W*GS
04-23-2013, 08:35 AM
Answer time:
1) A: Republican- Rick Santorum
2) B: Insane Person- Charles Manson
3) A: Republican- Rush Limbaugh
4) B: Insane Person- Ted Kaczynski
5) A: Republican- Glenn Beck
6) B: Insane Person- Adolf Hitler
7) B: Insane Person- Timothy McVeigh
8) B: Insane Person(s)- Westboro Baptist Church
9) A: Republican- Richard Mourdock
10) B: Insane Person- Ed Gein
11) B: Insane Person- Adolf Hitler
12) B: Insane Person(s)- Westboro Baptist Church
13) A: Republican- Michele Bachmann
14) A: Republican- Allen West
15) A: Republican- Glenn Beck
16) B: Insane Person- Adolf Hitler
17) A: Republican- Joe Walsh
18) B: Insane Person- Ted Kaczynski
19) A: Republican- Rush Limbaugh
20) A: Republican- Herman Cain

Requiem
04-23-2013, 08:52 AM
Hall of Fame Thread.

houghtam
04-23-2013, 09:03 AM
Hall of Fame Thread.

A++ thread. Quick svc, would recommend.

Rohirrim
04-23-2013, 09:10 AM
Wouldn't a Michele Bachmann quote be categorized as both?

Blart
04-23-2013, 02:06 PM
Answer time:
1) A: Republican- Rick Santorum
2) B: Insane Person- Charles Manson
3) A: Republican- Rush Limbaugh
4) B: Insane Person- Ted Kaczynski
5) A: Republican- Glenn Beck
6) B: Insane Person- Adolf Hitler
7) B: Insane Person- Timothy McVeigh
8) B: Insane Person(s)- Westboro Baptist Church
9) A: Republican- Richard Mourdock
10) B: Insane Person- Ed Gein
11) B: Insane Person- Adolf Hitler
12) B: Insane Person(s)- Westboro Baptist Church
13) A: Republican- Michele Bachmann
14) A: Republican- Allen West
15) A: Republican- Glenn Beck
16) B: Insane Person- Adolf Hitler
17) A: Republican- Joe Walsh
18) B: Insane Person- Ted Kaczynski
19) A: Republican- Rush Limbaugh
20) A: Republican- Herman Cain

Bolded are the ones I got wrong. 14/20. Fine line

Your new avatar is awesome btw

TonyR
04-24-2013, 08:42 AM
Here's a guy from the lunatic fringe defending slavery!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morgan-guyton/why-is-a-famous-evangelical-pastor-defending-slavery_b_3094279.html

baja
04-24-2013, 08:46 AM
Here's a guy from the lunatic fringe defending slavery!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morgan-guyton/why-is-a-famous-evangelical-pastor-defending-slavery_b_3094279.html

We are all slaves to the shadowy elite.

BroncoBeavis
04-24-2013, 09:08 AM
Next round...

Who said it?

A meaty opinion piece on the delusions, evasions and excuses of the Democratic faithful and all LABF can muster is a bartcop bitmap.

BroncoBeavis
04-24-2013, 09:10 AM
The Democrats are truly looking at decades of powerlessness. LOL

W*GS
04-24-2013, 09:54 AM
We are all slaves to the shadowy elite.

Speak for yourself.

BroncoBeavis
04-24-2013, 01:24 PM
Come on, Wags. You're not even going to take a stab at it? LOL

TonyR
04-26-2013, 01:48 PM
4th grade test given at a Christian school in SC:

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/04/snopes-rating-probably-true.html

http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/sciencetest.asp

BroncoBeavis
04-26-2013, 05:51 PM
4th grade test given at a Christian school in SC:

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/04/snopes-rating-probably-true.html

http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/sciencetest.asp

Could be worse.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/04/17/28atlanta-2.h32.html

Mecklomaniac
04-29-2013, 06:17 AM
Answer time:
1) A: Republican- Rick Santorum
2) B: Insane Person- Charles Manson
3) A: Republican- Rush Limbaugh
4) B: Insane Person- Ted Kaczynski
5) A: Republican- Glenn Beck
6) B: Insane Person- Adolf Hitler
7) B: Insane Person- Timothy McVeigh
8) B: Insane Person(s)- Westboro Baptist Church
9) A: Republican- Richard Mourdock
10) B: Insane Person- Ed Gein
11) B: Insane Person- Adolf Hitler
12) B: Insane Person(s)- Westboro Baptist Church
13) A: Republican- Michele Bachmann
14) A: Republican- Allen West
15) A: Republican- Glenn Beck
16) B: Insane Person- Adolf Hitler
17) A: Republican- Joe Walsh
18) B: Insane Person- Ted Kaczynski
19) A: Republican- Rush Limbaugh
20) A: Republican- Herman Cain

Funny how most people you identified as insane are liberals.

Charles Manson. Positions on environment and wall street to the left of Obama

Ted Kaczynski Wacked out left wing enviromentalist.

Adolph Hitler. Fascist.

Timothy Mcveigh. Way out of the mainstream, but self identified as republican

Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist. Former Dem politician. Was convention delegate for Al Gore.

houghtam
04-29-2013, 07:26 AM
Funny how most people you identified as insane are liberals.

Charles Manson. Positions on environment and wall street to the left of Obama

Ted Kaczynski Wacked out left wing enviromentalist.

Adolph Hitler. Fascist.

Timothy Mcveigh. Way out of the mainstream, but self identified as republican

Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist. Former Dem politician. Was convention delegate for Al Gore.

Fascism is a right wing philosophy, dumbass.

Rohirrim
04-29-2013, 07:32 AM
Hitler was a Leftie? In what universe?

Oh. That's right. He was a vegan. Ha!

houghtam
04-29-2013, 08:00 AM
Hitler was a Leftie? In what universe?

Oh. That's right. He was a vegan. Ha!

Yeah you know those conservatives, always fighting for the rights of the intelligentsia. I wonder if that's why he ordered thousands of academics rounded up and imprisoned.

I'm still waiting for dman to teach me some lessons about 1937 Austria.

Garcia Bronco
04-29-2013, 08:28 AM
Hitler was a Leftie? In what universe?



He was a socialist and was part of the German National Socialist Party. Mussolini and his party in Italy were facist. People typically learn this sort of thing in 7th grade history.

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2013, 08:36 AM
Fascism is a right wing philosophy, dumbass.

If only it were that simple.

houghtam
04-29-2013, 08:50 AM
He was a socialist and was part of the German National Socialist Party. Mussolini and his party in Italy were facist. People typically learn this sort of thing in 7th grade history.

And then in 9th grade western civ you learn that both were extreme conservative right wingers. You can also pick these things up in 9th grade Latin class when studying the roots of fascism. Or in College-level political science.

Pony Boy
04-29-2013, 09:00 AM
I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7 — building 7, which collapsed in on itself — it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes — 7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible. — Rosie O’Donnell talks Trutherism

Garcia Bronco
04-29-2013, 09:02 AM
And then in 9th grade western civ you learn that both were extreme conservative right wingers. You can also pick these things up in 9th grade Latin class when studying the roots of fascism. Or in College-level political science.

hehe. You might want to get your money back then.

Hitler was a socialist. He said so many times. He used his belief in socialism to justify what he did to the Jews and other Germans. Now I realize that doesn't set well with today's socialists, but it's something they need to deal with.

Pony Boy
04-29-2013, 09:04 AM
Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was. - Keith Olbermann

W*GS
04-29-2013, 09:07 AM
Hitler was a socialist. He said so many times. He used his belief in socialism to justify what he did to the Jews and other Germans. Now I realize that doesn't set well with today's socialists, but it's something they need to deal with.

If I call its tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Pony Boy
04-29-2013, 09:08 AM
America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for… — Cindy Sheehan

W*GS
04-29-2013, 09:12 AM
One problem for ya, Pony - those are fringe lefties.

Limbaugh, Santorum, Beck, and Bachmann are the core of your GOP.

Pony Boy
04-29-2013, 09:15 AM
In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who’s suffering. the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It’s all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see [the terrorists] as a relative who’s dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There’s nothing better. — [B]Richard Gere

Garcia Bronco
04-29-2013, 09:17 AM
If I call its tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

"If P, then Q" P does not determine if Q is true of false. The dog would still have 4 legs.

But to your point...let's ask the Dog.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

-Adolf Hitler

Pony Boy
04-29-2013, 09:23 AM
One problem for ya, Pony - those are fringe lefties.

Limbaugh, Santorum, Beck, and Bachmann are the core of your GOP.

No, they are worshipers of Obama and they have millions of blind sheep that follow them and do as they do.

Pony Boy
04-29-2013, 09:29 AM
I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. Sheryl Crow on Global Warming

TonyR
04-29-2013, 10:27 AM
One problem for ya, Pony - those are fringe lefties.

Limbaugh, Santorum, Beck, and Bachmann are the core of your GOP.

Exactly right. Huge difference. The average progressive has nothing in common with the people he's quoting.

houghtam
04-29-2013, 10:28 AM
hehe. You might want to get your money back then.

Hitler was a socialist. He said so many times. He used his belief in socialism to justify what he did to the Jews and other Germans. Now I realize that doesn't set well with today's socialists, but it's something they need to deal with.

If you can't understand the difference between socialism and national socialism, well...there's no hope for you.

TonyR
04-29-2013, 10:29 AM
No, they are worshipers of Obama and they have millions of blind sheep that follow them and do as they do.

LOL All the people you quoted combined don't have "millions of blind sheep that follow them". Meanwhile the people W*gs mentioned are pretty much the leaders of the GOP. Can you seriously not understand the difference?

Rohirrim
04-29-2013, 10:38 AM
He was a socialist and was part of the German National Socialist Party. Mussolini and his party in Italy were facist. People typically learn this sort of thing in 7th grade history.

Ha! And North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Garcia Bronco
04-29-2013, 10:43 AM
If you can't understand the difference between socialism and national socialism, well...there's no hope for you.

I can take a **** in a box and mark guaranteed on it , but that doesn't mean I have a quality product. The Nazi's practiced economic socialism, period. It's was in their message and actions until the end.

Rohirrim
04-29-2013, 10:47 AM
I can take a **** in a box and mark guaranteed on it , but that doesn't mean I have a quality product. The Nazi's practiced economic socialism, period. It's was in their message and actions until the end.

Maybe we can finally put this stupidity to rest. BTW, Hitler didn't name the party. He joined it and took it over. Here's a response to that old chestnut from a poster in another forum that does all the work I am loathe to do for you. Why? Because you'll ignore it anyway:

The Nazis most resoundingly were NOT socialists by the only valid definition extant, and the verifiable evidence is absolutely unanimous and overwhelming.

William L. Shirer in THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH noted that there was little or no socialism in "National Socialism".

Thyssen (I PAID HITLER and many others) pointed out that the "marriage" of business and the National Socialist Party, despite Hitler's contempt for aristocracy and business in general, guaranteed high profits for businesses. Ironically, his steel company was seized over what amounted to a personal hassle with the hierarchy, and handed over for administration and profit to Krupp/von Bohlen, rather than being "nationalized" in the pure sense, which is what would've happened in a left wing state.

Albert Speer, the Third Reich's last Armaments Minister, in INSIDE THE THIRD REICH makes clear that he had great difficulty controlling fiefdoms and bailiwicks of various private firms well into 1944, when the war was already going to pieces. He also notes the privatization of all the formerly state-owned arsenals, even the huge ones at Suhl, Spandau, and Amberg (13 in all!).

Public education, of course, had been one of the key features of all organized states since Roman times. And National Public Health in Germany was enacted 1871-83, before Hitler was BORN, by the Bismarck government.

Hitler's state enacted NO new welfare programs, and eliminated many, sending former "loafers" to the death or work camps. Almost none qualified for military service, as the Weimar Republic had always claimed.

Hitler, of course, much like today's conservatives, attacked the Weimar government as "intrusive" and "socialist", and he HATED "Bolshevism" and "social democrats" (socialists), and proclaimed it loudly on almost every page of MEIN KAMPF.

Bullock, Toland, Heisler, and hundreds of others verify that there was no nationalization in Nazi Germany, and indeed, the general trend was in the other direction. Railroads were amalgamated and standardized for military purposes, but this had been a plan for at least 80 years!

Himmler, well before the Wannsee Conference, and after the "Night of the Long Knives", which eventuated the disposal of any and all left-sympathizing party members, including Ernst Roehm, about 1938, enunciated to a mass meeting of the SchutzStaffel (S.S.): "We are of the right and of order. We shall sweep away Jews, Bolsheviks, and liberal democracies as one sweeps away flies."

Here's the deal: You can hear LOTS of things, especially if listening to clowns. But every scholar clearly identifies the Nazis with the right wing, and no one serious does NOT identify them with the reactionary right wing. All the historians agree.

The inclusion of the "s" word was a clumsy but sometimes convenient leftover from a merger well described in the literature. They even used it, short term, through tracts written by the Strasser brothers, to con working men into acquiescing to the movement. For their leftist-sounding pamphlets, the Strassers were murdered. And anyone who suggested in Germany, once they took power, that Nazis were "progressive" or "leftists" would've been killed for his statement.

It's the scholarship that counts. Drunks in bars and idiots spewing madness in chat rooms are not sources of ANY kind! And the same applied to uncredentialed and unportfolioed so-called "pundits" who claim Nazis were "progressive" or "liberal", which is a huge, undocumented, insidious, and criminal lie.

No, Hitler and the Nazis were about as far from "socialists" as it is possible to be.
Source(s):
All the valid sources, to include the witnesses, participants, victims, scholars, observers, and anyone who has actually studied the subject matter.

cutthemdown
04-29-2013, 10:58 AM
We have to pass it to find out what is in it. Nancy Pelosi.

W*GS
04-29-2013, 11:38 AM
No, they are worshipers of Obama and they have millions of blind sheep that follow them and do as they do.

Santorum, Bachmann, and Cain were credible nominees for your party's candidacy for President.

Limbaugh and Beck are two of the most influential voices of your party.

Not even close.

Fedaykin
04-29-2013, 11:42 AM
hehe. You might want to get your money back then.

Hitler was a socialist. He said so many times. He used his belief in socialism to justify what he did to the Jews and other Germans. Now I realize that doesn't set well with today's socialists, but it's something they need to deal with.

So North Korea is a Democratic Republic eh? Who knew?

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2013, 12:01 PM
Limbaugh and Beck are two of the most influential voices of your party.

Huh, a guy who's favorite primary candidate got bounced right away and an out-of-work TV show host have all the influence?

Isn't "influence" supposed to show some kind of, you know, influence?

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2013, 12:06 PM
Maybe we can finally put this stupidity to rest. BTW, Hitler didn't name the party. He joined it and took it over. Here's a response to that old chestnut from a poster in another forum that does all the work I am loathe to do for you. Why? Because you'll ignore it anyway:

With guys like Hitler, titles don't really matter. The guy would've called himself a Hare Krishna if he thought it might've even marginally helped his grip on power. Trying to duct tape a guy like him to any serious ideological group is usually the lowest form of ad hominem.

Rohirrim
04-29-2013, 12:08 PM
Any disparity of opinion is ruthlessly stamped out on the Right. Pony Boy assumes the same thing holds true on the Left. Such is the disease called binary thinking.

TonyR
04-29-2013, 12:11 PM
Huh, a guy who's favorite primary candidate got bounced right away and an out-of-work TV show host have all the influence?

Isn't "influence" supposed to show some kind of, you know, influence?

Whether they won or not they either held positions or ran for them. The same can't be said for most/all of the people pony quoted.

As for influence, Limbaugh's influence in particular has been demonstrated over and over again. And even if you ignore his influence his voice is not that of a radical in the GOP.

You're smart enough to see that this is an apples/oranges comparison.

Rohirrim
04-29-2013, 01:03 PM
With guys like Hitler, titles don't really matter. The guy would've called himself a Hare Krishna if he thought it might've even marginally helped his grip on power. Trying to duct tape a guy like him to any serious ideological group is usually the lowest form of ad hominem.

The Nazis were a radical, reactionary, xenophobic, rascist, anti-democratic, Right Wing movement. Where the shoe fits...

houghtam
04-29-2013, 02:10 PM
The Nazis were a radical, reactionary, xenophobic, rascist, anti-democratic, Right Wing movement. Where the shoe fits...

Don't forget they were also in favor of expanded gun rights, reworking the definition of citizenship based on race, and creating fake communist threats to drum up support for their own narrow-minded ideas.

Man, the more things change...

Blart
04-29-2013, 02:30 PM
capitalism <3's fascism

Friedman
Hayek
Mises

All had their favorite dictator.

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/

BroncoInferno
04-29-2013, 02:41 PM
So North Korea is a Democratic Republic eh? Who knew?

Hilarious! GB embarrassing himself once again.

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2013, 03:16 PM
Whether they won or not they either held positions or ran for them. The same can't be said for most/all of the people pony quoted.

As for influence, Limbaugh's influence in particular has been demonstrated over and over again. And even if you ignore his influence his voice is not that of a radical in the GOP.

You're smart enough to see that this is an apples/oranges comparison.

Sorry, but Rush was pretty plain about being for just about anyone but Romney. Romney winning the nomination tells you all you need to know.

There's one list of people liberals like to think are influential in the Republican Party. And then there's the list of people who actually are.

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2013, 03:25 PM
capitalism <3's fascism

Friedman
Hayek
Mises

All had their favorite dictator.

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/

http://archive.mises.org/18257/mises-on-fascism-again/

Here we go again. Today, statist-nationalist Michael Lind writing in Salon seizes on one passage from Mises’s book Liberalism to argue that Mises was a crypto-authoritarian (which is a heck of an accusation for Lind, of all people, to make; Lind wrote an entire book that seeks to revive nationalism as a political ideology – even regretting that fascism discredited nationalism).

The passage from Mises as selectively quoted:

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.

And that’s where Lind ends it, failing to add Mises’s actual conclusion:

But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

The passage was part of Mises’s book that was published in 1927, just after Mussolini took power. Mises could easily discern that many people regarded Fascism as a savior, and this passage is merely acknowledging that common view. This view lasted for many years. For example, fully six years later, the New York Times Magazine published (March 19, 1933) a massive tribute to the glories of Professor Mussolini. The NYT writes:

In a period when all politicians are either dull or unwilling to break away from routine – “tradition” ; when it seems that in every Western nation the spring of imagination is dried up, Mussolini gives the impression of an ever-welling source. One may object to any for of dictatorship, but one cannot help being stimulated by the phenomenal vitality of this man who, in his role of dictator, has commanded the barren soil of Italy to produce wheat within a given time; ordered his territory to be expanded (by reclaiming swamps) without extending his fronters; and, not content with summoning new cities into existence, is changing the face of the Eternal City by diggin up the buried glories of Imperial Rome….

So in reality Mises was saying pretty much the opposite of what you're tagging him with.

houghtam
04-29-2013, 03:29 PM
Sorry, but Rush was pretty plain about being for just about anyone but Romney. Romney winning the nomination tells you all you need to know.

There's one list of people liberals like to think are influential in the Republican Party. And then there's the list of people who actually are.

Care to make us an Influential/Not-Influential list so we can know who the real idiots behind last year's colossal ****-up were?

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2013, 03:29 PM
The Nazis were a radical, reactionary, xenophobic, rascist, anti-democratic, Right Wing movement. Where the shoe fits...

Funny. Every adjective you used also applies to Stalin.

Left Wing movement.

See how easy that is?

Blart
04-29-2013, 03:36 PM
Sounds the same to me as a Marxist apologizing for the Soviet Union. "Full of the best intentions" :giggle:

However, I've never seen a prominent Marxist rationalize the Gulag. Here's Mises writing away all of the needless violence and torture at the hands of dictators:

“The deeds of the Fascists and of other parties corresponding to them were emotional reflex actions evoked by indignation at the deeds of the Bolsheviks and Communists. As soon as the first flush of anger had passed, their policy took a more moderate course and will probably become even more so with the passage of time” - Mises

"The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
- Ludwig Von Mises

I don't think you could be any more wrong, thankfully for him Austrian Economists don't consider history or evidence.

Fedaykin
04-29-2013, 04:20 PM
Funny. Every adjective you used also applies to Stalin.

Left Wing movement.

See how easy that is?

.. the take away being, of course, that it's extremism that is the problem.

That's why the radical right taking over the Republican Party is so troublesome. The Republican party is so extreme right at the moment that their perception is out of whack with reality, which is why they consider centrists like Obama and the bulk of the Democratic party to be "radical".

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2013, 04:31 PM
Sounds the same to me as a Marxist apologizing for the Soviet Union. "Full of the best intentions" :giggle:

However, I've never seen a prominent Marxist rationalize the Gulag. Here's Mises writing away all of the needless violence and torture at the hands of dictators:

“The deeds of the Fascists and of other parties corresponding to them were emotional reflex actions evoked by indignation at the deeds of the Bolsheviks and Communists. As soon as the first flush of anger had passed, their policy took a more moderate course and will probably become even more so with the passage of time” - Mises

"The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
- Ludwig Von Mises

I don't think you could be any more wrong, thankfully for him Austrian Economists don't consider history or evidence.

You do realize that this stuff was written in 1929, don't you? Most of the really really bad stuff European fascists did was not only unknown to most people, but hadn't even really happened yet. How exactly was he supposed to denounce them for things they hadn't even done yet?

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2013, 04:38 PM
The Republican party is so extreme right at the moment that their perception is out of whack with reality, which is why they consider centrists like Obama and the bulk of the Democratic party to be "radical".

Yeah, totally. Cuz when right-wingers go wild, they do crazy **** like nominate John McCain and Mitt Romney. LOL

Compare those two again to Obama, and tell me again which is more centrist. I can't think of a single issue where Obama isn't 100% Liberal Orthodox. But for McCain or Romney, the inverse simply isn't the case.

Fedaykin
04-29-2013, 04:59 PM
Yeah, totally. Cuz when right-wingers go wild, they do crazy **** like nominate John McCain and Mitt Romney. LOL

Compare those two again to Obama, and tell me again which is more centrist. I can't think of a single issue where Obama isn't 100% Liberal Orthodox. But for McCain or Romney, the inverse simply isn't the case.

Just means you are a prime example of what I'm talking about. Obama is very much a centerist. Your perception of what "center" is simply is out of whack, because the American political system is very much skewed right.

Blart
04-29-2013, 05:02 PM
Yeah, totally. Cuz when right-wingers go wild, they do crazy **** like nominate John McCain and Mitt Romney. LOL

Compare those two again to Obama, and tell me again which is more centrist. I can't think of a single issue where Obama isn't 100% Liberal Orthodox. But for McCain or Romney, the inverse simply isn't the case.

Aside from human rights, civil liberties, wars, corporations, special interests, economic policy, and the environment... I guess he's pretty liberal.

http://www.obamatheconservative.com/

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/how-liberal-is-president-obama/
(be careful with that nate silver guy, he's a witch)

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2013, 05:08 PM
Aside from human rights, civil liberties, wars, corporations, special interests, economic policy, and the environment... I guess he's pretty liberal.

Well he campaigned to the left of Hillary on pretty much all of that. Did he keep all those promises? No. But that makes him more of a garden-variety politician than a 'centrist'

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2013, 05:10 PM
Just means you are a prime example of what I'm talking about. Obama is very much a centerist. Your perception of what "center" is simply is out of whack, because the American political system is very much skewed right.

Ok, so who should the Republicans have nominated? In 2008, I chuckled all the time at some old left-leaners I knew because for 6 years or so, they swore up and down that if only Republicans had nominated McCain instead of Bush in 2000, they would've voted for him.

Then here he comes, and suddenly he's some sort of blind partisan ideologue they just couldn't support. The fact of the matter is that the blindness was theirs, not his.

Rohirrim
04-29-2013, 05:17 PM
Funny. Every adjective you used also applies to Stalin.

Left Wing movement.

See how easy that is?

Because yellow is a color it's the same thing as blue.

See how easy that is?

Yeah, I know all about your sophomoric love for fallacious argument. Which is why I ignore you.

Rohirrim
04-29-2013, 05:26 PM
capitalism <3's fascism

Friedman
Hayek
Mises

All had their favorite dictator.

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/

The dread of democracy by libertarians and classical liberals is justified. Libertarianism really is incompatible with democracy. Most libertarians have made it clear which of the two they prefer. The only question that remains to be settled is why anyone should pay attention to libertarians.
^5

The Koch Brothers despise democracy and spend the majority of their time and money trying to figure a way around it.

Rohirrim
04-29-2013, 05:30 PM
.. the take away being, of course, that it's extremism that is the problem.

That's why the radical right taking over the Republican Party is so troublesome. The Republican party is so extreme right at the moment that their perception is out of whack with reality, which is why they consider centrists like Obama and the bulk of the Democratic party to be "radical".

I think Obama and the bulk of the Dems are right of center. The Right is so far right that the Dems, in contrast, appear to be centrists. If Nixon was alive today, he'd be a Leftist.

TonyR
04-29-2013, 05:31 PM
Sorry, but Rush was pretty plain about being for just about anyone but Romney. Romney winning the nomination tells you all you need to know.

There's one list of people liberals like to think are influential in the Republican Party. And then there's the list of people who actually are.

If you don't realize that Limbaugh I hugely influential and large (lol) figure to the republican brand then I don't know what to tell you.

houghtam
04-29-2013, 05:32 PM
Ok, so who should the Republicans have nominated? In 2008, I chuckled all the time at some old left-leaners I knew because for 6 years or so, they swore up and down that if only Republicans had nominated McCain instead of Bush in 2000, they would've voted for him.

Then here he comes, and suddenly he's some sort of blind partisan ideologue they just couldn't support. The fact of the matter is that the blindness was theirs, not his.

You haven't followed his politics very closely. He turned from true "maverick" to...well..."presumptive republican nominee".

TonyR
04-29-2013, 05:35 PM
Well he campaigned to the left of Hillary on pretty much all of that. Did he keep all those promises? No. But that makes him more of a garden-variety politician than a 'centrist'

Your typical attempt at a dodge when you've been schooled. And yes, he is something of a "garden-variety" politician as opposed to being the extremist liberal you thought he was. You're slowly catching on whether you know it or not!

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2013, 09:24 PM
You haven't followed his politics very closely. He turned from true "maverick" to...well..."presumptive republican nominee".

I've heard that story told before. But I've never met the person that could make a decent case on what positions McCain changed between 2000 and 2008 that suddenly made him unacceptable.

In reality the only thing the changed was him winning the Republican nomination as opposed to losing it. You guys talk a good game, but at the end of the day the only thing you truly believe is that the only good Republican is a dead (politically) Republican. So you'll always talk up the Huntsmans and cry about the Romneys, even though the difference in real-world policy would be microscopic.

Rah Rah Rah! The party cheerleaders reliably stay in line during game time, even if they backbite and gossip a little on the bus ride home. :)

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2013, 09:27 PM
Your typical attempt at a dodge when you've been schooled. And yes, he is something of a "garden-variety" politician as opposed to being the extremist liberal you thought he was. You're slowly catching on whether you know it or not!

I love it when people bring absolutely nothing of any meaning to the table and then talk about how their non-response is "schooling" people. You said Rush was influential. So tell me, what groundbreaking Republican issue or candidate has he driven to victory lately? School me up.

houghtam
04-29-2013, 11:32 PM
I've heard that story told before. But I've never met the person that could make a decent case on what positions McCain changed between 2000 and 2008 that suddenly made him unacceptable.

In reality the only thing the changed was him winning the Republican nomination as opposed to losing it. You guys talk a good game, but at the end of the day the only thing you truly believe is that the only good Republican is a dead (politically) Republican. So you'll always talk up the Huntsmans and cry about the Romneys, even though the difference in real-world policy would be microscopic.

Rah Rah Rah! The party cheerleaders reliably stay in line during game time, even if they backbite and gossip a little on the bus ride home. :)

Again you're showing your ignorance of the issues and plugging an old Fox News line...yeah yeah yeah, we know. You don't watch Fox News.

Okay, smart guy, how about we start with his opinion on treatment of detainees in Guantanamo? See, in '05 he and his best buddy Lindsey Graham penned this masterpiece.

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=39d95eb0-4b88-423c-b0f7-c4cb6c7e9a1a&Region_id=&Issue_id=

"We firmly believe it is now time to make a decision on how the United States will move forward regarding the detainees, and to take that important next step. A serious process must be established in the very near term either to formally treat and process the detainees as war criminals or to return them to their countries for appropriate judicial action."

Then after he became the nominee, well look at that, he says regarding Boumedeine v. Bush:

"The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

How about we talk about his views on religious extremism? In '00 he said:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/28/se.01.html

"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."


And then in '06, you know, when McCain was starting to make his run at the nomination?

McCain Reconnects With Liberty University

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/13/AR2006051300647.html

"Six years after labeling the Rev. Jerry Falwell one of the political "agents of intolerance," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) delivered the commencement address Saturday at Falwell's Liberty University, and vigorously defended his support for the war in Iraq"

Woooooooow. Look at that. What. A. Co-inky-dink.

Shall I continue?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1ytCEuuW2_A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BroncoBeavis
04-30-2013, 08:55 AM
You're going to have to point out to me how...

"We firmly believe it is now time to make a decision on how the United States will move forward regarding the detainees, and to take that important next step. A serious process must be established in the very near term either to formally treat and process the detainees as war criminals or to return them to their countries for appropriate judicial action."

...is intellectually inconsistent with disagreeing with the Boumediene decision. What (in your mind) is the inconsistency here?

And on to point two... you've built a case that McCain could no longer be supported because he once spoke somewhere that once had something to do with someone you didn't like. Glad the fate of the nation rests on such weighty issues. :)

TonyR
04-30-2013, 09:06 AM
I love it when people bring absolutely nothing of any meaning to the table and then talk about how their non-response is "schooling" people. You said Rush was influential. So tell me, what groundbreaking Republican issue or candidate has he driven to victory lately? School me up.

Wow. So you're really going to pretend that Limbaugh doesn't have much sway in the GOP? That GOP politicians haven't frequently shown fear of, or deference towards, the king of right wing radio? Have you seen what he's beein doing to Rubio lately? I could give you hundreds of examples. Here's just a few.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/frank-luntz-rush-limbaugh-problematic-secret-tape

http://www.salon.com/2009/03/01/limbaugh_11/

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/13/limbaughs-unrivaled-influence-on-republican-pol/186630

BroncoBeavis
04-30-2013, 09:22 AM
Wow. So you're really going to pretend that Limbaugh doesn't have much sway in the GOP? That GOP politicians haven't frequently shown fear of, or deference towards, the king of right wing radio? Have you seen what he's beein doing to Rubio lately? I could give you hundreds of examples. Here's just a few.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/frank-luntz-rush-limbaugh-problematic-secret-tape

http://www.salon.com/2009/03/01/limbaugh_11/

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/13/limbaughs-unrivaled-influence-on-republican-pol/186630

See, this is what I'm talking about. As evidence of who has real influence in the Republican Party, you cite three openly-liberal sources convincing themselves that Rush is enemy #1.

As I said, there's a list of people Liberals think are the most influential, and then there are those who actually are.

I'm not saying Rush doesn't have his base, and there's some influence there. But every neighborhood campaign worker in America has some level of 'influence' You guys like to pretend guys like Rush sit in back rooms, chomping cigars, deciding which way the party is going to head. There's just no evidence to back that up. Rush supported Romney in '08 when Romney lost. Rush OPPOSED Romney in '12 when Romney won.

Rush was at his peak in the 90's, influence wise, while he was breaking new ground in editorial news coverage. Now he's just another one of many voices out in the 24/7 news wilderness. Even if his ego has yet to realize it. :)

TonyR
04-30-2013, 09:36 AM
See, this is what I'm talking about. As evidence of who has real influence in the Republican Party, you cite three openly-liberal sources convincing themselves that Rush is enemy #1.

Stop concerning yourself with the sources and look at the content. You're smart enough to wade through the bias to the extent it exists.

BroncoBeavis
04-30-2013, 09:57 AM
Stop concerning yourself with the sources and look at the content. You're smart enough to wade through the bias to the extent it exists.

They're your articles. You make the argument for why they help your case. Just browsing the first one, it seems to quote one (blowhard) pollster who thinks Limbaugh presents some image problems. Even assuming that's the case, imaging problems don't equal influence.

Maybe there's a needle of an argument in these haystacks of words you linked. But I know their motivation. It shouldn't be up to me to sift through it to try to make your argument for you.

Salon.com, MM and MJ WANT Limbaugh to be the face of the Republican party. Now show me where they proved that he actually IS.

TonyR
04-30-2013, 10:11 AM
^ Denial. It's not just a river in Africa.

houghtam
04-30-2013, 10:18 AM
You're going to have to point out to me how...



...is intellectually inconsistent with disagreeing with the Boumediene decision. What (in your mind) is the inconsistency here?

And on to point two... you've built a case that McCain could no longer be supported because he once spoke somewhere that once had something to do with someone you didn't like. Glad the fate of the nation rests on such weighty issues. :)

Okay let's start with number two, because that's the most obvious one, and because number two is a euphemism for a turd, which is what you're purposely being.

The issue is about McCain himself. In 2000, he spoke out against religious extremism. In 2006 he magically patched things up with the same person he condemned. If you don't think that's politically motivated, you're a bigger idiot than you led us to believe.

Now why is this relevant? Do you honestly think someone as vocal about anti-establishment religion would have voted for Al "big ass Christian from Tennessee, married to Tipper 'you sell it, I censor it'" Gore and Joe Freaking Lieberman over a guy who went on record saying religious extremism should be silenced? I can tell you that that alone was enough.

BroncoBeavis
04-30-2013, 10:18 AM
^ Denial. It's not just a river in Africa.

Sorry, arguing with linkbots is just a waste of everyone's time. Bring some of your own ideas or interpretations.

BroncoBeavis
04-30-2013, 10:27 AM
Now why is this relevant? Do you honestly think someone as vocal about anti-establishment religion would have voted for Al "big ass Christian from Tennessee, married to Tipper 'you sell it, I censor it'" Gore and Joe Freaking Lieberman over a guy who went on record saying religious extremism should be silenced? I can tell you that that alone was enough.

He said religious extremism should be "silenced?" Do tell. LOL

If you want a more balanced story, read here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050501745_2.html

It may have been your wish that McCain had stayed bitter and angry with his former political enemies. But that kind of politics (as we're seeing on display today) never helped anyone.

Oh and your first point was the far more significant of the two. Why did you start with the least significant one? Because only a weak sauce case can be made about what REALLY changed about McCain (other than he became the nominee)

houghtam
04-30-2013, 10:45 AM
He said religious extremism should be "silenced?" Do tell. LOL

If you want a more balanced story, read here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050501745_2.html

It may have been your wish that McCain had stayed bitter and angry with his former political enemies. But that kind of politics (as we're seeing on display today) never helped anyone.

Oh and your first point was the far more significant of the two. Why did you start with the least significant one? Because only a weak sauce case can be made about what REALLY changed about McCain (other than he became the nominee)

Because I'm on my phone and don't have the time to get into the weeds on legal language. Secondly, since when do you decide how important an issue is for a voter, particularly one you have nothing in common with politically? I'm sorry you're plagued with a constant need to list rhetorical gymnastics to try and win an argument. Redirect, redirect, redirect! Tony is right, you're not much more than that guy who sat next to Jabba and pecked out Threepio's eyes.

You ask who would have voted for McCain over Gore, I said I would. You asked why, I told you. Now you're crying because its not the argument you want to hear. Tough luck, chump. I would have voted for McCain in 2000.

Now let me get back from the dirt store and get our garden in this afternoon while the weather's still nice. I'll address the point about the scotus decision when I get to it.

TonyR
04-30-2013, 10:54 AM
Sorry, arguing with linkbots is just a waste of everyone's time. Bring some of your own ideas or interpretations.

I'm not going to spoon feed you, Beavis. Limbaugh's influence on the GOP is both obvious and widely known among anyone paying attention. I posted links to give you some examples. If you don't want to read them that's your prerogative. You name a "conservative" who is more well known or has a larger following. What he says matters. No GOP politician dares criticize him. Is this really that difficult for you to understand? Or are you just trying to be difficult as per usual?

BroncoBeavis
04-30-2013, 11:17 AM
Because I'm on my phone and don't have the time to get into the weeds on legal language. Secondly, since when do you decide how important an issue is for a voter, particularly one you have nothing in common with politically? I'm sorry you're plagued with a constant need to list rhetorical gymnastics to try and win an argument. Redirect, redirect, redirect! Tony is right, you're not much more than that guy who sat next to Jabba and pecked out Threepio's eyes.

Lolz. You bring up two points on your own accord. I address both. I specifically ask you a question about the first, yet only make an observation about the second. You ignore the first point, where I asked a question, and only respond to the second. When I ask why that is, you say I'm the one who's redirecting. LOL

BroncoBeavis
04-30-2013, 11:22 AM
I'm not going to spoon feed you, Beavis. Limbaugh's influence on the GOP is both obvious and widely known among anyone paying attention. I posted links to give you some examples. If you don't want to read them that's your prerogative. You name a "conservative" who is more well known or has a larger following. What he says matters. No GOP politician dares criticize him. Is this really that difficult for you to understand? Or are you just trying to be difficult as per usual?

Yeah, don't spoon feed me. Just post links to other people's semi-related (or not) articles and tell me to go read them to figure out what your take is. That sounds like real dialog. I don't mind using whatever sources you like. But you'd better at least excerpt (or paraphrase if you like) the salient points and add some thought.

Otherwise, we can just do this...
LINK WAR!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/12/rush-limbaugh-and-right-wing-talk-radio-flame-out-as-listeners-tune-to-independents.html

houghtam
04-30-2013, 11:30 AM
Lolz. You bring up two points on your own accord. I address both. I specifically ask you a question about the first, yet only make an observation about the second. You ignore the first point, where I asked a question, and only respond to the second. When I ask why that is, you say I'm the one who's redirecting. LOL

You'll get an in-depth answer when I'm not in the checkout line at Lowe's, you worm. Meantime you'll just have to satisfy your pretty little head with that for now. Regardless, I've already given you ample reasoning why your thinking that liberals would never vote against a democrat is not just wrong, but stupid. Now, shoe on other foot, you've repeatedly called yourself an independent...when was the last time you voted against a conservative?

TonyR
04-30-2013, 11:32 AM
Yeah, don't spoon feed me. Just post links to other people's semi-related (or not) articles and tell me to go read them to figure out what your take is. That sounds like real dialog. I don't mind using whatever sources you like. But you'd better at least excerpt (or paraphrase if you like) the salient points and add some thought.

Otherwise, we can just do this...
LINK WAR!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/12/rush-limbaugh-and-right-wing-talk-radio-flame-out-as-listeners-tune-to-independents.html

Wait, you mean it's okay to use The Daily Beast as a source?!? Even though it might have a <shudder> liberal bias?!?

Sorry, Beavis, this article doesn't help your "case" (as if you had one here lol). Sure, Limbaugh may have hit some periods of decline. But still, as the article states...

Rush is a giant in his field, reaching more listeners than anyone in political talk...

^ That's the salient point you seem unable, or unwilling, to wrap your little head around. If I have to further elaborate then I'm clearly wasting my time.

TonyR
04-30-2013, 11:34 AM
...you've repeatedly called yourself an independent...

^ This is the funny thing (or one of many funny things) about many GOPpers. They're either "independents" or "libertarians", and none of them supported GWB. Funny how that works.

BroncoBeavis
04-30-2013, 11:40 AM
Wait, you mean it's okay to use The Daily Beast as a source?!? Even though it might have a <shudder> liberal bias?!?

Sorry, Beavis, this article doesn't help your "case" (as if you had one here lol). Sure, Limbaugh may have hit some periods of decline. But still, as the article states...



^ That's the salient point you seem unable, or unwilling, to wrap your little head around. If I have to further elaborate then I'm clearly wasting my time.

I think you're missing the base point. Being the 'king' of talk radio in and of itself proves nothing. Political talk really isn't all that influential. As evidenced by the fact that Republican voters appeared to do exactly the opposite of what the "giant in his field" wanted them to. This is the antithesis of"influence"

TonyR
04-30-2013, 11:57 AM
I think you're missing the base point. Being the 'king' of talk radio in and of itself proves nothing. Political talk really isn't all that influential. As evidenced by the fact that Republican voters appeared to do exactly the opposite of what the "giant in his field" wanted them to. This is the antithesis of"influence"

I'm missing the point?!?

Just because "his" candidate didn't get the GOP nom does not mean that he doesn't have any influence. One thing it does prove how weak Romney's challengers were. We also don't know how much Limbaugh's disapproval of Romney impacted the election.

Regardless, you continue to overcomplicate this. You can't have millions of loyal listeners, and have the largest audience of any political talker, and not wield some influence. I would imagine the voter turnout of Limbaugh's audience is well into the 90's (why would someone apolitical listen to Limbaugh?). It's also a rather safe assumption that his audience votes "his" way (why would you be a loyal listener of someone you disagree with?). To deny that he speaks for millions of "conservatives", and to further deny that his brand of "conservatism" hasn't made a mark on both the manner and style of discourse and the content of such discourse from the right, is to plant ones' head in the sand.

BroncoBeavis
04-30-2013, 01:22 PM
I'm missing the point?!?

Just because "his" candidate didn't get the GOP nom does not mean that he doesn't have any influence. One thing it does prove how weak Romney's challengers were. We also don't know how much Limbaugh's disapproval of Romney impacted the election.

Regardless, you continue to overcomplicate this. You can't have millions of loyal listeners, and have the largest audience of any political talker, and not wield some influence. I would imagine the voter turnout of Limbaugh's audience is well into the 90's (why would someone apolitical listen to Limbaugh?). It's also a rather safe assumption that his audience votes "his" way (why would you be a loyal listener of someone you disagree with?). To deny that he speaks for millions of "conservatives", and to further deny that his brand of "conservatism" hasn't made a mark on both the manner and style of discourse and the content of such discourse from the right, is to plant ones' head in the sand.

"Some influence" isn't the standard here. Allow me to reintroduce you to the statement that started this whole stupid argument.

Limbaugh and Beck are two of the most influential voices of your party.

Would you agree? If so, why does the party so often deliver pretty much the exact opposite of what these professional mouthpieces say they want?

TonyR
04-30-2013, 02:03 PM
Would you agree? If so, why does the party so often deliver pretty much the exact opposite of what these professional mouthpieces say they want?

Yes, the argument is a little silly. On that we agree. But...

I'd say no on Beck, and yes on Limbaugh. So, then, "one of the most influential voices". How many others can you name that are more influential? And I guess it matters how you define the word.

As for not always getting his way, he doesn't control the party. He probably has the ears of more people than anyone else on the right, but that certainly doesn't mean he always has the majority opinion. He's neither king nor king maker. But he's certainly "influential".

BroncoBeavis
04-30-2013, 02:16 PM
I'd say no on Beck, and yes on Limbaugh. So, then, "one of the most influential voices". How many others can you name that are more influential? And I guess it matters how you define the word.

A lot of that hinges on whether you count elected officials or not. If we're limiting this to only unelected media-types then you could probably say Rush is up there. But that seems like a useless exercise if we're really trying to gauge who calls the party's shots.

Pony Boy
04-30-2013, 02:51 PM
How about the two top candidates for the Democraps.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Stupid+Hillary+quotes

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Dumb+Joe+Biden+Quotes

errand
05-01-2013, 01:09 PM
Hitler was a Leftie? In what universe?

Oh. That's right. He was a vegan. Ha!

Just because Hitler was to the political right of Stalin doesn't mean he wasn't some left-wing nut case.

errand
05-01-2013, 01:13 PM
hehe. You might want to get your money back then.

Hitler was a socialist. He said so many times. He used his belief in socialism to justify what he did to the Jews and other Germans. Now I realize that doesn't set well with today's socialists, but it's something they need to deal with.

Exactly .....hence the term "National Socialist" in the Nazi Party's name.

Rohirrim
05-01-2013, 01:31 PM
The radical Right in America is hovering around on the brink of fascism. I can understand their drive to try and label Hitler and the Nazis as something they were not. The association makes them uncomfortable.

Rohirrim
05-01-2013, 01:45 PM
Before the Berlin Wall fell, East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic. Was it Democratic? Was it a Republic? At least it was (mostly) German. Ha!

Fedaykin
05-01-2013, 01:46 PM
Exactly .....hence the term "National Socialist" in the Nazi Party's name.

Not surprisingly, tweedle dumber pops in to repeat the stupidity of tweedle dumb.

BroncoBeavis
05-01-2013, 01:47 PM
The radical Right in America is hovering around on the brink of fascism. I can understand their drive to try and label Hitler and the Nazis as something they were not. The association makes them uncomfortable.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics... hey don't your guys up in DC caucus with a Socialist? That's right, they do, don't they.

Associating is fun.

Rohirrim
05-01-2013, 01:55 PM
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics... hey don't your guys up in DC caucus with a Socialist? That's right, they do, don't they.

Associating is fun.

Socialism and communism have never been tried.

I'll quote from another forum:

Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Those who think the Soviets or even China, are actually socialists, have no idea what the word means. It's laughable to think that the Nazis were socialist.

BroncoBeavis
05-01-2013, 02:04 PM
Socialism and communism have never been tried.

I'll quote from another forum:

Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Those who think the Soviets or even China, are actually socialists, have no idea what the word means. It's laughable to think that the Nazis were socialist.

It's true they've never been tried. And they never will. Because somewhere between reality and utopia, human ambition sets up roadblocks and takes hostages. :)

errand
05-01-2013, 06:47 PM
It's true they've never been tried. And they never will. Because somewhere between reality and utopia, human ambition sets up roadblocks and takes hostages. :)

these clowns should examine the little known fact that the Pilgrims established a short-lived form of communism.

The land was owned in common; everyone worked for each other and each received an equal allotment of food no matter how hard they worked. This system quickly failed. The women described the communal chores as a form of slavery, men rapidly lost motivation, and the able-bodied feigned illness to avoid work.

As Governor William Bradford described in Of Plymouth Plantation, “[The] taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth...was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment...” He also added that men questioned why should they labor longer and harder to feed those men who did not. Women who had just a husband complained that they would perform the services of washing the clothing, etc. of others who had several family members and not be compensated for it. Basically everyone was equally miserable.

After much debate and prayer, Bradford established a free market system by assigning each family a portion of land and giving them rights to what it produced. He was amazed at the results and credited it with creating the bountiful harvest, and the colony started to thrive.....

these liberals for some stupid reason keep thinking that communism can work if only the right people were in charge of it......

BroncoInferno
05-02-2013, 07:16 AM
these liberals for some stupid reason keep thinking that communism can work if only the right people were in charge of it......

Who's the liberal arguing for another go at communism? That's just another idiotic right-wing straw man with no basis in reality. Most liberals would agree that communism is an unrealistic utopia (just like libertarianism). News flash, genius: communism isn't the same thing as socialism, and socialism isn't the same thing as liberalism. Take a poly sci course sometime and learn something.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2013, 08:08 AM
Who's the liberal arguing for another go at communism? That's just another idiotic right-wing straw man with no basis in reality. Most liberals would agree that communism is an unrealistic utopia (just like libertarianism). News flash, genius: communism isn't the same thing as socialism, and socialism isn't the same thing as liberalism. Take a poly sci course sometime and learn something.

Why don't you take your hyperbole sensitivity over to the guy calling everyone he doesn't like a fascist. LOL

Rohirrim
05-02-2013, 08:38 AM
these liberals for some stupid reason keep thinking that communism can work if only the right people were in charge of it......

If somebody was "...in charge of it..." it wouldn't be communism. Ha!

I realize it is very difficult for binary thinkers to contemplate the complex world that exists beyond two, diametrically opposed concepts, but it does exist.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2013, 08:44 AM
If somebody was "...in charge of it..." it wouldn't be communism. Ha!

I realize it is very difficult for binary thinkers to contemplate the complex world that exists beyond <s>two, diametrically opposed concepts</s> Human Nature, but it does exist.

FIFY :)

Rohirrim
05-02-2013, 10:36 AM
FIFY :)

You're really just clueless, aren't you? :)

Fedaykin
05-02-2013, 12:28 PM
Funny how the wingnuts are quite happy to talk about the very real practical failings of communism whilst completely ignoring the very real practical failings of capitalism.

That neither system works in practice is why we've never implemented them, and why we shouldn't even try. Its why only a compromise between the two -- a situation that brought us to be the most successful economy in the world -- is feasible.

houghtam
05-02-2013, 12:32 PM
Funny how the wingnuts are quite happy to talk about the very real practical failings of communism whilst completely ignoring the very real practical failings of capitalism.

That neither system works in practice is why we've never implemented them, and why we shouldn't even try. Its why only a compromise between the two -- a situation that brought us to be the most successful economy in the world -- is feasible.

There's no such thing as a compromise between communism and capitalism, because of human nature.

SO SAYS BEAVIS!

LOL

Fedaykin
05-02-2013, 12:33 PM
On the subject of the Op. it's a trick question. All of the cited republicans are also crazy people.

nyuk nyuk
05-03-2013, 09:49 AM
"If you put too many people on Guam, it gonna tip ovah." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q) -- Ronald Reagan.

BroncoLifer
05-03-2013, 10:25 AM
Hillary Clinton "would be the most qualified person to enter the White House in modern history." - Nancy Pelosi, 5/2/2013

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pelosi-hillary-would-be-most-qualified-person-enter-white-house-modern-history_720558.html

The Democrats have seen fit to make this towering intellect their leader in the House of Representatives.

Rohirrim
05-03-2013, 10:29 AM
Hillary Clinton "would be the most qualified person to enter the White House in modern history." - Nancy Pelosi, 5/2/2013

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pelosi-hillary-would-be-most-qualified-person-enter-white-house-modern-history_720558.html

The Democrats have seen fit to make this towering intellect their leader in the House of Representatives.

I don't get it. She's right. ???

houghtam
05-03-2013, 10:39 AM
I don't get it. She's right. ???

Whatever you think of her, her qualifications dwarf that of a 1 term congressman, the governors of Georgia, Texas and Arkansas, and an actor.

Going back to Nixon, only he and Bush I are comparable to Hillary Clinton.

BroncoLifer
05-03-2013, 10:48 AM
Being married to someone famous and powerful and then using that connection to gain office is not the same as being qualified, particularly when her performance in those offices has been completely lackluster. What has she actually accomplished as Senator or SoS?

BroncoLifer
05-03-2013, 10:49 AM
Whatever you think of her, her qualifications dwarf that of a 1 term congressman, the governors of Georgia, Texas and Arkansas, and an actor.

Going back to Nixon, only he and Bush I are comparable to Hillary Clinton.

You be right. I may have been too hasty -- community organizing and peanut farming have indeed proven to be awful practice for being President.

houghtam
05-03-2013, 10:51 AM
You be right. I may have been too hasty -- community organizing and peanut farming have indeed proven to be awful practice for being President.

You forgot cattle ranching.

BroncoLifer
05-03-2013, 11:06 AM
You forgot cattle ranching.

Which one did that -- LBJ? I thought W's ranch didn't have animals.