Obama warned Republicans to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats [modified]

Stan Shannon

If that were true I wish more conservatives would follow Limbaugh's lead. Limbaugh, coulter et al, are not in policy making positions. They are mere pundits. Obama applies those rules as a means of achieving an actual political agenda from the inside in a seat real power. He, like the democrats, are relentless, ruthless and fanatical in the pursuit of that agenda. I wish my side had that kind of tactical resolve. I admire it.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

EliottA wrote:

Yes sir, "I hope Obama fails", that's what I call support!! About as much support as CP has for vb6 posts...

Yes, but as we all know, rooting for the failure of your political opponents is the greatest form of patriotism.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Lost User

that, and foxnews has a reputation for quoting people exactly as they speak. Such a credible news source aren't they.

Lost User

Stan Shannon wrote:

If that were true I wish more conservatives would follow Limbaugh's lead. Limbaugh, coulter et al, are not in policy making positions. They are mere pundits. Obama applies those rules as a means of achieving an actual political agenda from the inside in a seat real power. He, like the democrats, are relentless, ruthless and fanatical in the pursuit of that agenda. I wish my side had that kind of tactical resolve. I admire it.

It's amazing how stupid some people can be. Try to understand that being "democratic" isn't a black and white thing, neither is being Republican. You're pro-life, they're pro-choice. You're pro-gun, they're pro-restriction. Half of your own country is "democratic", the other half is "republican", about 50% of each side doesn't know what the fuck it means to be either, but hate the other side either way. Furthermore, another 15% on top of that probably has traits bestowed in the core fundamental principles of either republican or democratic. Dumbasses.

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

In Stan's opinion you should be taken out and shot.

Isn't that what you are supposed to do with traitors?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

EliottA wrote:

You're pro-life, they're pro-choice. You're pro-gun, they're pro-restriction.

Well, for my part, I'm neither "pro-life" "pro-abortion" "pro-gun" or "pro-restriction". I am basically just an "anti-" kind of guy.

EliottA wrote:

Half of your own country is "democratic", the other half is "republican", about 50% of each side doesn't know what the fuck it means to be either, but hate the other side either way. Furthermore, another 15% on top of that probably has traits bestowed in the core fundamental principles of either republican or democratic.

I think things divide up pretty much in a traditonal way. You have a third thats fairly firmly committed to one side or the other, and understand the issues pretty well. Than you have a third which we call "the center" which has no strong ideological foundation but sort of forces those on the extremes to temper their policies to gain their vote one way or another. In the last few election cycles the conservatives were successful at making the liberals look more extreme, in this last election the reverse happened.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

modified on Monday, January 26, 2009 8:32 PM

BoneSoft

It is supportive of America (at least one could argue). Much like hoping Al Qaeda fails, or the Institute for Policy Studies fails. Depends on what you're supporting. ;)

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

BoneSoft

Yes, compared to most others, they are a shining beacon of truth. Of course, the others don't set the bar very high, do they.

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

BoneSoft

So we've been told for about 8 years. :laugh:

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

BoneSoft

Oakman wrote:

Trust me. It isn't. I can prove it. The equator is south of here.

Yes, their geologies are easy. But you'll have a much harder time finding distinction between the idiologies of Chazev, Castro, Morales and Obama. Silencing dissenting media? Confiscating land? Nationalizing huge swaths of the private sector, is Bush largest screw up by leaps and bounds. But he's out, he obviously wasn't setting himself up as a socialist dictator.

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

Oakman

BoneSoft wrote:

So we've been told for about 8 years

You want to reflect on 2002 when Bush's approval rating was in the 90's and rethink that? Certainly there were some who opposed Bush from the get-go, but they were few and far between. Bush and Kennedy were getting along just fine back then and Clinton voted with him far more often than not. I was glad to have Bush as my President then - and given the fact the the alternative was Gore, I guess I still am. However, he screwed the pooch by himself without help for the media or the Democrats. He turned out to be the worst war president we've had - exceeding even Wilson who spent most of WWI in a semi-coma. (OK, if you want to remind me that Cheney and Rumsfeld helped him, I'll agree.) The b.s. that Bush spent eight years being shit on by the media is exactly that. During the first 2 - 3 years, the vast majority of his coverage was positive. The vast majority of the people of the U.S. hailed him as a good man and a good president. In other words, he had a chance, a good chance, and he blew it. Any rewriting of history that claims otherwise is a flat out lie. His final approval rating was an accurate assessment by the people of the United States of a man who probably tried hard to do the right thing, but just wasn't up to the job.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

BoneSoft wrote:

It is supportive of America (at least one could argue). Much like hoping Al Qaeda fails, or the Institute for Policy Studies fails. Depends on what you're supporting.

You may think you were being cute, but if you do not understand the difference between the President of the United States and Al Qaeda, I suggest you need to try living in Afghanistan where the two are waging a war against each other.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

BoneSoft

Oakman wrote:

You want to reflect on 2002 when Bush's approval rating was in the 90's and rethink that? ... The b.s. that Bush spent eight years being sh*t on by the media is exactly that. ... Any rewriting of history that claims otherwise is a flat out lie.

Who's talking about the media? The media are the absolute LAST people who will be dogging Obama. We were talking, I thought, about us lowly peons. There are still to this day a lot of morons running around bitching about Bush stealing the elections. Both elections.

Oakman wrote:

However, he screwed the pooch by himself without help for the media or the Democrats... (OK, if you want to remind me that Cheney and Rumsfeld helped him, I'll agree.)

Correct. I won't argue at all.

Oakman wrote:

His final approval rating was an accurate assessment by the people of the United States of a man who probably tried hard to do the right thing, but just wasn't up to the job.

Yet some still argue for 9% Peloci and Ried. But again, I won't argue. However, if it makes you feel better, I'll change that to "So we've been told for the last 6 years". It doesn't diminish my point.

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

Oakman

BoneSoft wrote:

The media are the absolute LAST people who will be dogging Obama. We were talking, I thought, about us lowly peons.

I think you better leave Limbaugh in the media class - call him a lowly peon and he is liable to blow his cigar smoke in your face - or even worse, cut the (Limbaugher) cheese.

BoneSoft wrote:

There are still to this day a lot of morons running around bitching about Bush stealing the elections. Both elections.

Sure and at least, in the case of the first election, a lot of that bitching is aimed at the supreme court. Are you saying that all of the criticism of the supremes comes from the left?

BoneSoft wrote:

Yet some still argue for 9% Peloci and Ried

Sometimes I think those two are a perfect example of Congress ignoring the will of the people. You must know some Democrats - I'd be very surp[rised if they think highly of those two. (Unless you live in Utah or San Francisco)

BoneSoft wrote:

However, if it makes you feel better, I'll change that to "So we've been told for the last 6 years". It doesn't diminish my point.

But doesn't it make a case for giving Obama a chance before calling for a revolution?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

BoneSoft

Oakman wrote:

I think you better leave Limbaugh in the media class

I did. I was talking about us peons.

Oakman wrote:

Are you saying that all of the criticism of the supremes comes from the left?

Umm... No. I'm saying that plenty of people have been bitching about Bush for the last 8 years.

Oakman wrote:

Sometimes I think those two are a perfect example of Congress ignoring the will of the people.

Yes. But I find it very interesting how often Bush's meager double digit approval rating comes up and Congress' 9% rarely does. Perhaps somewhat jerk-knee for me to mention it.

Oakman wrote:

But doesn't it make a case for giving Obama a chance before calling for a revolution?

To call for revolution? Yes. To not feel compelled to 'get on board'? Nope. His campaign promises were enough. I don't have to watch and catch him in the act of perpetrating them. And when he does, then we can talk counter-revolution. A little uprising to let him see the difference between the working class of reality and the proletariat of his Marxist teachers.

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

BoneSoft

Hold the phone Jon. I wasn't comparing them. Al Qaeda was an extreme example of another destructive entity that it would be unsupportive of America to support. The point was that both are in opposition of America's best interests though in vastly different ways. One seeks it's destruction, the other works toward it unwittingly. I had no intention of suggesting that they were the same type or severity of threat or intention. You know what, never mind, it was a bad example. But don't go off thinking I was equating one to the other.

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

Synaptrik · modified on Monday, January 26, 2009 3:50 PM

Here's another interpretation: If you wish to get work done together, forget the hate-filled rhetoric. You can't tell convince me that Rush is a "Positive" person.

This statement is false

MrPlankton

Give a listen for a week, and tell me what you think.

MrPlankton

Mexican boy: Viene la tormenta! Sarah Connor: What did he just say? Gas Station Attendant: He said there's a storm coming Sarah Connor: [sighs] I know.

Synaptrik

Fair enough. But that notion should be shared by you also; IMO. :laugh:

This statement is false