Just to clarify, you aren't implying that those who dislike or disagree with Rush and the like do NOT care about the US, are you?

 

Can't speak for the poster but I didn't get any inkling like that at all from the post.

Best post in this thread. :thumb:

 

Questions: It has been years since I have listened to Rush. Is there anyone out there that is more "far right" than he is? Did he ever provide any support of President Clinton, who was more moderate than what people assume Obama to be?

 

Seems that he supported Clinton on the welfare reform.

Seems that he supported Clinton on the welfare reform.

 

So he supported a moderate democrat on one item...hmmm. Seems to me, Obama is right. If we want to move forward, you can't follow Rush's "dig our heels in" example.

 

Good points made above about Rush and ratings...and his choice to NOT run for political office. I'm sure he would win if he decided to run for a variety of offices. If he loves the US so much and knows what is best for it, why not run? $$$$$$$$$$ As a result, he will instead continue to work for ratings. There's nothing wrong with that. We talk about kool-aid all the time. Rush has his own brand, too.

There is a difference in the way you and I are seeing this issue.

You think Obama picked out Rush because he is a conservative.

I think Obama picked out Rush because he is divisive.

 

The two thoughts lead this discussion in entirely different directions.

It's not just this conversation that is being led in different directions... :lol:

 

All showbiz, bluster and entertainment aside, the primary reason Rush is divisive is because he articulates conservatism so clearly on such a large stage. Conservatism is the antithesis of Obama's platform.

 

I respenct the office of POTUS, and Mr. Obama is now my president. On the grand scheme, I do hope he is a good president, because my country needs that. On the level of social reengineering and enormous government programs, I hope the Democrats fail sooner than later in implementing things that will literally drag this nation down.

 

It is not necessary for us to punish lack of effort, life does that quite effectively. It is idiotic for us to punish the doers and achievers by redistributing the fruit of their labors against their will. If you thought our economy was slow before, the liberal plan will bring it to a grinding halt. This is genuinely an example where being able to say, "See, I told you so" has absolutely no appeal for me.

 

America did not become the world's single superpower by socialism. We will not remain a superpower via socialism. If stating the truth plainly is divisive, I guess I'm no better than Rush... without a golden microphone and millions a year from sponsors who WANT to pay me. :lol:

Obama mentioned Rush Limbaugh because that gets the most response from the public (and from Rush).

 

You guys took the bait.

 

Obama is every bit as divisive as Rush. Otherwise, he would ignore him and put his efforts into fixing the problems of this country and thereby proving Rush wrong. When he talks about Rush, he is really talking about people who believe like Rush. This is but the first warning shot in the battle.

 

The First Amendment guarantees the Freedom of Press. The purpose for that Freedom is yet another safeguard to keep our government honest and fair. A transparent and effective government has nothing to fear from a divisive radio host.

So he supported a moderate democrat on one item...hmmm. Seems to me, Obama is right. If we want to move forward, you can't follow Rush's "dig our heels in" example.

 

Good points made above about Rush and ratings...and his choice to NOT run for political office. I'm sure he would win if he decided to run for a variety of offices. If he loves the US so much and knows what is best for it, why not run? $$$$$$$$$$ As a result, he will instead continue to work for ratings. There's nothing wrong with that. We talk about kool-aid all the time. Rush has his own brand, too.

 

You asked and that is one I remember. There may have been more but I would doubt it. How many issues would you have expected a conservative to support Clinton on? How many issues did Air America or Keith Olbermann support Bush on? Wouldn't you say they dug in their heels? It seems that the way to bipartisianship these days is for the conservatives to capitulate.

You asked and that is one I remember. There may have been more but I would doubt it. How many issues would you have expected a conservative to support Clinton on? How many issues did Air America or Keith Olbermann support Bush on? Wouldn't you say they dug in their heels? It seems that the way to bipartisianship these days is for the conservatives to capitulate.

 

I agree with you. I don't watch Olberman either. If either extreme is determined to "dig their heels in" than they cannot promote progress in our country.

I agree with you. I don't watch Olberman either. If either extreme is determined to "dig their heels in" than they cannot promote progress in our country.

 

True, and the biggest success President Obama can have is to change the culture in Washington. I'm not holding my breath but if he can do that, then much can be accomplished.

True, and the biggest success President Obama can have is to change the culture in Washington. I'm not holding my breath but if he can do that, then much can be accomplished.

 

Despite what anyone feels of any of his policies individually, his intention to change the culture in DC is one of his campaign promises I wish for success in the most. If, by some chance, he is able to do that, it can potentially change the climate in America in many ways. I feel this country is very far away for being the United States right now, and that's the very foundation on which any successes must be built.

It seems that the way to bipartisianship these days is for the conservatives to capitulate.

Nailed it. :thumb:

Nailed it. :thumb:

 

 

Unfortunately, IMO, many conservatives feel any compromise is capitulation. Rarely is there ever a situation where one way or another is the "right way". Most often, what is the best lies somewhere between.

Unfortunately, IMO, many conservatives feel any compromise is capitulation. Rarely is there ever a situation where one way or another is the "right way". Most often, what is the best lies somewhere between.

I would "capitulate" to agree that SOMETIMES what is best lies between, but IMO gray is most often merely a dilution of light and dark.

 

Whether we agree or can still see them, there are still such things as absolute right and absolute wrong... absolute good and absolute evil. Diluting good with evil does not make anything better. Capitulating merely to seem cooperative serves no one’s best interests.

 

I realize this isn’t warm and fuzzy and cuddly, but it is real. :thumb:

I would "capitulate" to agree that SOMETIMES what is best lies between, but IMO gray is most often merely a dilution of light and dark.

 

Whether we agree or can still see them, there are still such things as absolute right and absolute wrong... absolute good and absolute evil. Diluting good with evil does not make anything better. Capitulating merely to seem cooperative serves no one’s best interests.

 

I realize this isn’t warm and fuzzy and cuddly, but it is real. :thumb:

 

I get the feeling you think compromise is warm and fuzzy and cuddly, and that you are disparaging of such. However, the hardest thing for most people to do is to compromise, it requires real work, and real analysis. It's much easier to dig your heels in and refuse to open yourself to other ideas.

There are some issues that simply are not something to compromise on, and I don't think its extremist so much as principled.

 

Koresh probably felt the same way. Extreme is obviously subjective so your principles may not seem extreme to you but Hitler's didn't seem extreme to him.

 

When I used the term I was referring to those on the fringes that yell the loudest.

Unfortunately, IMO, many conservatives feel any compromise is capitulation. Rarely is there ever a situation where one way or another is the "right way". Most often, what is the best lies somewhere between.

 

On a semi-related (and intentionally cruel) tangent do you think that the Catholic Church should change some of her beliefs for the sake of christian unity?