View Single Post
Old 11-07-2007, 01:54 PM   #19
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
If by "biting wit" you mean bigotry, phobia, and hatred, I agree with you.
I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with you about Coulter...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
So him saying that soldiers who disagree with the policy are "phony soldiers" isn't radical??
No, it isn't...because the entire "phony soldiers" controversy was a scam started by Media Matters for America and perpetuated by Democrats in Congress. I listen to Rush just about every day, and I was listening to the show the day the "phony soldiers" comment was made. He was referring to anti-war activists who pretend to be combat veterans. The specific "phony soldier" in question washed out of boot camp, then joined a leftist anti-war group and tried to pass himself off as an Iraq War veteran (Jesse Macbeth). About the only reason the Media Matters report got the traction that it did was because Limbaugh didn't initially bring up that soldier during the show...the caller that brought up the topic during Limbaugh's program was referring to Limbaugh's "morning update" (where he talked specifically about Macbeth), a 2-minute segment that airs about an hour and a half before the start of his show. Then, when Limbaugh posted the show transcript on his site, Media Matters yelled & hollered because the transcript was edited...as it turns out, the caller changed the subject to something completely different, and that was what was edited out.

If you don't listen to Limbaugh, Media Matters' tripe can sound pretty convincing, but the truth is that it's all a lie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Real conservatives like Ron Paul are great (he's the only guy I really like in the '08 election), but what the Bush Republicans advocate is neoconservatism, which at its very core is a radical ideology.
I'm not a big fan of the Libertarian Party...which is where Ron Paul came from and should have stayed, imo. I started out as a "Bush Republican," but I think he (and the Republican party) have moved too far to the left on spending & the border. Personally, I like Duncan Hunter for the '08 election.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Yes - they really became radical during the Vietnam War - but during the Clinton years, who was the most radical? The right. The Dems haven't begun impeachment proceedings against Bush yet, but the Republicans are proud of the fact that they impeached Bill for a private affair that never should have been pursued by Congress. Sounds pretty radical to me.
The "private affair" argument has to be the #1 absolutely stupidest bone-headed argument I've ever heard (that's not a flame, it's my honest opinion). The president of the United States engages in sexual acts (multiple times) with a White House intern in the oval office while conducting official business (which he then lied about under oath), and you leap to his defense claiming it's a private matter? If he'd been a Republican, the libs would've run him out of Washington on a rail (whether he'd lied about it or not). He should've been thrown out of office for disgracing the office of the presidency...and that's without even including the fact that he perjured himself.

The Left calmed down a lot during the Clinton years because many people on the Left think they're entitled to get what they want. When the Dems are in control, they're fine with things...but then they start throwing temper tantrums the as soon as someone from another party is elected (or even if someone in their own party isn't liberal enough for them, as was the case with Joe Leiberman).

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
You act as if Bush doesn't go on TV and bitch at the Congressional Dems every time they refuse to rubberstamp his runaway spending and looney nominees.
This is the problem: the Dems bitch and moan every time Bush nominates someone who isn't to the left of Che Guevara and think they can get away with it indefinitely. When the Dems won control of Congress last year, they made all sorts of promises about how they'd change things, but the truth is that they've done very little in the way of legislation to advance their agenda...and they've been so intent on pursuing meaningless investigations into the Bush administration in an attempt to keep them tied up that they aren't even taking care of the basic business of Congress.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
The point on Coulter is she says stuff that is designed with one thing in mind: her bottom line. I've heard her say it. She says something controversial, her book sales go up. I think that's probably true; she seems like it to me. And if you wanted to, I'm sure you could find someone said something somewhere and they could be turned into a radical.
Ann Coulter is a capitalist...and there's nothing wrong with that. She is an author...she makes her living by selling books. I have to laugh every time I hear some crazy lib say "she's just in it for the money," because writing books is her career. Of course she's in it for the money. That doesn't mean she doesn't believe what she says. And the truth of the matter is that if people didn't agree with Coulter, there's no way she'd be as successful as she has been.


As for the topic of impeachment, I'm not sure whether the Dems in Congress have officially tried to impeach Bush, but the Republicans kept the Cheney impeachment bill alive in an effort to embarrass the Dems. There has been talk about trying to impeach Bush, but I think it wasn't followed up on because the votes just aren't there.

Oh, and it's also notable to mention that the Cheney impeachment bill was proposed by Dennis Kucinich, one of the wackiest liberals in Congress (if not one of the wackiest liberals of all time).


Personally, I think it's pretty disingenuous to bring up radicalism on the right during the Clinton years & compare it to what's going on on the Left today. Even the right's radicalism back then doesn't compare to what's been going on today...and the majority of people on the right denounced those radicals back then. Impeaching President Clinton wasn't radical, because what Clinton did was a disgrace and an embarrassment to America...and then he turned it into a criminal matter by lying about it under oath. He deserved to be impeached, because when the President is engaging in sex acts with a subordinate while on the job, it's not a "private matter" anymore.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,