AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@JTT,

JTT, We can make an easy conclusion about okie's ability to understand lies or truth; he spews enough himself, and his trust is given to a guy like Limbaugh who lies so often, god turns over in his grave.

0 Replies

@JTT,

I'm not getting into your argument about Rush Limbaugh, because I refuse to listen to him.

But FYI, he hasnt had a TV show since the mid 1990's.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

You think the Tea Party is just going to give up trying to select RNC candidates without a fight? The RNC will have two alternatives:
(1) Win with the candidates the Tea Party supports;
(2) Lose with candidates the Tea Party does not support.

I think the RNC will choose alternative (1).

I think you are absolutely wrong. Totally. Because there is a different power structure in place with the two parties, and if you think the RNC is just going to hand the reins over to a group of amateur activists, you're crazy.

Remember the last place you tried this - NY-23 - and how that turned out: with a Democrat elected. You will see this happen in a large percentage of your districts.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Rush has his negatives, but I do not believe lying is one of them.

Oh, you do not believe that, Okie. I haven't listened to more than a half hour of Limbaugh in my life but I've read of the distortions with which he constantly floods the airwaves.

I googled "list of Rush Limbaugh lies" and you know what, there were plenty of hits, some 600,000 just for that collection of words.

Sure, you could do a search on anybody and get thousands of hits, especially somebody the left hates, such as Limbaugh or Bush, or Beck, or anyone that talks common sense. But you really need more than accusations, you need facts, and you don't have it. I am not dumb enough to claim everything Limbaugh says is 100% perfect, but I do think he tells no intentional lies, I think the man is honest. And I have heard him correct a statistic or fact if he learns it to be slightly off or wrong. What he does do is give his opinion which is a biased opinion, skewed toward the conservative end of the scale. And because of that, he will disagree with most of what you believe. He does not believe in socialism, he is a big defender of capitalism, of free markets, of liberty and freedom, of America, of personal rights and responsibilities. And his a bit egotistic and proud of his success, and somewhat bombastic, but that is no crime the last time I checked.

I would challenge you to provide one thing that Limbaugh said that was a lie. An opinion different than yours does not count. And you have to have proof of something that is obviously different and show that Limbaugh intentionally gave the wrong information with the intent to deceive. I don't think you can do it.

I have no interest in making Limbaugh the primary issue here, but I do tire of liberals that attempt to demonize people simply for expressing a political viewpoint that does not line up with their view of the world, when their view of the world is really really screwed up in my opinion. I think people should be negatively affected when they hang around Marxists and former terrorists, which Obama has done, which is totally and absolutely different than a Limbaugh. Limbaugh is a conservative, has a huge listenorship, and he makes fun of liberals, which liberals do not like, and therefore want to shut the man up, and one way to do that is lie about the guy and distort what he has said. I am sure there are scores of people monitoring every word the man says, looking for anything and everything they can find to distort into something negative.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, Are you really that stupid? It's not about thousands of hits; it's about whether those "hits" are telling the truth or are lies. If you can't challenge any of them, it doesn't matter about the count.

You're a dumbass.

Quote:

Rush Limbaugh Lies About President Obama (Again)

mediamatters.org " "Obama said that we all must learn to live within our means and not expect the values of our homes to go up 10, 20 percent over our lifetimes ever again." Not what Obama said AT ALL. -- Later, Rush continues his lies with: "Can I translate it for you? The days of prosperity are over, quote, the president of the United States, unquote." [audio too]

These goes back to July/Aug 1994:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

From Yahoo Answers on "5 lies by Limbaugh."

Quote:

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer whose viewpoints simply have no basis in fact or reality. Here are a few whoppers, with many more listed in the source material:

1. "It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Radio show, 4/29/94)

2. LIMBAUGH: On the Republicans' "Contract With America": "The New York Times never ran anything on the contract 'til after the election. The rest of the news media hardly talked about it at all." (TV, 4/6/95)

REALITY: In the 42 days between the announcement of the "Contract with America" and the Nov. 8, 1994 election, the New York Times published 45 articles that mentioned the contract--more than one a day. The Nexis computer database reports that more than 1400 pieces mentioning the contract were published before the election.

3. LIMBAUGH: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)

REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.

4. LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: "And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period." (Told You So, p. 84)

REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau's "Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States")

5. LIMBAUGH: "Oh, how they relished blaming Reagan administration policies, including the mythical reductions in HUD's budget for public housing, for creating all of the homeless! Budget cuts? There were no budget cuts! The budget figures show that actual construction of public housing increased during the Reagan years." (Ought to Be, p. 242-243)

REALITY: In 1980, 20,900 low-income public housing units were under construction; in 1988, 9,700, a decline of 54 percent ;Statistical Abstracts of the U.S).In terms of 1993 dollars, the HUD budget for the construction of new public housing was slashed from $6.3 billion in 1980 to $683 million in 1988. "We're getting out of the housing business. Period," a Reagan HUD official declared in 1985.

6. LIMBAUGH: "There's no such thing as an implied contract." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)

REALITY: Every first-year law student knows there is.

Source(s):
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895

0 Replies

@okie,

Actually, thanks to Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Larsen, McConnell, Hewitt, Levin, Medved, Ingraham, Boortz, Prager, O'Reilly, and others, we actually do get some useful news about what is going on with legislation and other issues. Without them, we would have to resort to the internet to combat the very uninformative and misleading mainstream news outlets. It has gotten to the point that news magazines like Newsweek are virtually worthless as a source, I dropped them years ago because every issue was increasingly an insult to the concept of fair reporting and to peoples common sense and decency. And we all know what a joke the New York Times has become.

Continue to keep a sharp eye out for some kind of underhanded initiative to shut down talk radio, as Obama and his minions do not take kindly to any opposing viewpoint, and I think they have little to no allegiance to free speech.

2 Replies

@okie,

As the saying goes, there's no cure for stupid. okie is a prime example.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Right, cice, okie cannot cure YOUR stupid frequently dsiplayed by you by your repeated failures to make rational rebuttals and your choice of libel instead!

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

In order for the less wealthy to become more wealthy, the more wealthy have to invest in opportunities that benefit the less wealthy. When the more wealthy invest in such opportunities, they get more wealthy, and so do the less wealthy. And that increases the income difference or gap between the more and less wealthy. Without that increasing income difference or gap, the less wealthy would not get more wealthy.

While coveters are enraged at that increasing gap, the less wealthy are delighted with their improving economic condition.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

... your choice of libel instead!

There isn't as yet, a word to describe your level of stupidity, Ican. CI put the facts that OKIE ASKED FOR right in front of his nose and he did what idiots like you always do, shift to your mind-numbingly stupid regurgitations.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

I'm not sure which is more impressive, your knowledge of constitutional law or economics.

But both sure are a read.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

In order for the less wealthy to become more wealthy, the more wealthy have to invest in opportunities that benefit the less wealthy.

Not true. The less wealthy could merely save their money and cut their spending. Then they would become more wealthy, without any extra work from anyone.

Quote:

When the more wealthy invest in such opportunities, they get more wealthy, and so do the less wealthy

Also untrue. The less wealthy gain tiny percentage points, whereas the more wealthy profit tremendously. The situation is set up exactly to produce this effect and for no other purpose.

Quote:

. And that increases the income difference or gap between the more and less wealthy. Without that increasing income difference or gap, the less wealthy would not get more wealthy.

The decade of the 1990s give the lie to this; the income disparity between the rich and poor shrank AND the poor became more wealthy, under higher business and personal income taxes. The exact opposite of what you say will happen.

Quote:

While coveters are enraged at that increasing gap, the less wealthy are delighted with their improving economic condition.

What country do you live in? The 'less wealthy' have gotten much less wealthy over the last decade, whereas the top 1% has seen both their income and their share of the total wealth rise.

To sum it up: your theories are directly controverted by our actual experience as a nation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

In order for the less wealthy to become more wealthy, the more wealthy have to invest in opportunities that benefit the less wealthy. When the more wealthy invest in such opportunities, they get more wealthy, and so do the less wealthy. And that increases the income difference or gap between the more and less wealthy. Without that increasing income difference or gap, the less wealthy would not get more wealthy.

While coveters are enraged at that increasing gap, the less wealthy are delighted with their improving economic condition.

Amazing logic.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

That's logic?

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

In order for the less wealthy to become more wealthy, the more wealthy have to invest in opportunities that benefit the less wealthy. When the more wealthy invest in such opportunities, they get more wealthy, and so do the less wealthy. And that increases the income difference or gap between the more and less wealthy. Without that increasing income difference or gap, the less wealthy would not get more wealthy.

While coveters are enraged at that increasing gap, the less wealthy are delighted with their improving economic condition.

Amazing logic.

It is good logic. It is not logical to try to make everyone more affluent by the government spreading misery. You need wealth, you need rich people in order to invest and to provide capital to fund the innovation and ingenuity that drives the economy. And I think what ican is arguing in different words is that the wealthy placing their wealth into the economy to drive the economy is more efficient for everyone including the people on the lower rungs than it is for the government to take from the wealthy and then inject that money back into the economy via government funded public projects or to the poor in the form of welfare assistance. In other words, the free market economy is more efficient than a government driven economy, for everyone in every economic layer of the economy.

I don't know if this has been written about or not, but I have recently observed the fact that government jobs are the most secure and stable of the entire job scene in many many areas of this country, and increasingly so for the entire country, and thus we have created an elite government class, but at the expense of the taxpaying private sector, thus creating more poverty and less economic expansion in the private sector. We are becoming top heavy, and the weight of the balance will eventually bleed the private sector dry and will no longer be able to support the government sector, thus leading to higher and higher deficits until such time that the entire system collapses. This strikes me as not too unlike communism, except not quite as extreme, but as advocates of big government continue to be successful in growing government, it will inevitably come at the expense of the private sector, which will eventually bleed the country dry of its wealth. The primary reason I believe this is the fact that government is not an efficient producer of wealth, it is instead a consumer of wealth. It is the private sector that is the most efficient producer of wealth, and if it is continued to be bled dry by a an overly thirsty government, the flow of wealth will eventually dry up.

1 Reply

@okie,

And how is our government by spreading more misery making everybody affluent?

Do you really know what you are saying?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

And how is our government by spreading more misery making everybody affluent?

Do you really know what you are saying?

Do you, Cice, know what you are talking about? How can the government spread more misery by not throwing money away on fruitless projects that discourage more private sector job creation and encourage less private sector job maintenance?

0 Replies

Okie- You are quite correct. When an organization does not have to make a profit, it does not work as hard as it should, When an organization makes a profit selling 4 million widgets this year after selling 3 and a half last year, they may decide to open a new factory thus creating more jobs.

Some, viewing the nice salaries and bonuses gained by the best on Wall Street are envious. They do not realize that those salaries and bonuses are a very small percentage of the amounts earned in a year.

Adam Smith had it right. The invisible hand in the marketplace has always been the best way to reach affluence. Even the ChiComs are learning this and are nudging ever closer to capitalism.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I don't think so, Mr. Cyclops. But, as long as you are quoting Rasmussen as a viable source, let's look at today's Presidential Poll.

Date
Presidential Approval Index
Strongly Approve
Strongly Disapprove
Total Approve
Total Disapprove

12/12/2009
-16
25%
41%
46%
53%

12/11/2009
-12
27%
39%
47%
51%

12/10/2009
-12
28%
40%
46%
53%

12/09/2009
-10
29%
39%
48%
52%

12/08/2009
-11
27%
38%
47%
52%

12/07/2009
-11
27%
38%
49%
50%

12/06/2009
-14
25%
39%
47%
52%

12/05/2009
-14
26%
40%
47%
52%

12/04/2009
-12
28%
40%
46%
54%

12/03/2009
-11
29%
40%
46%
54%

12/02/2009
-12
27%
39%
47%
52%

12/01/2009
-13
27%
40%
47%
52%

11/30/2009
-14
26%
40%
47%
52%

11/29/2009
No polling

11/28/2009
No polling

11/27/2009
No polling

11/26/2009
No polling

11/25/2009
-15
26%
41%
46%
54%

11/24/2009
-15
27%
42%
45%
54%

11/23/2009
-13
28%
41%
46%
53%

11/22/2009
-10
29%
39%
48%
52%

11/21/2009
-13
27%
40%

******************************************************************

At this rate, the only people who will vote for Barack Obama in 2012 will be his "homies' in Chicago

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know