The Republican Party has certainly lost its way. All you have to do is look at the enormous spending under Bush. Even if you want to argue that more military spending is "conservative"- which may be true, provided you don't also argue that more intervention in foreign affairs is conservative, unless your also willing to wager that Clinton was a neocon (because his track record on overseas intervention was equally abysmal)- Bush's non-military spending was growing at the fast rate of any President in decades.

 

Unfortunately, Bush felt he had to "buy votes" to support his Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which meant he had to go along with people that wanted to support increased domestic spending. I'm been a pretty strong supporter of Bush on here (one of the few), but even I feel he sold his soul to the devil to get funding for his military needs. I'd much rather he had attacked the increased domestic spending and let his military needs live or die on their own merits (although I'll admit that such a position is much easier me to state than perhaps live with had I been the CIC).

 

I'm also one of the few on here that doesn't think his overseas intervention was abysmal (or at least feels it's way too early to make that judgment). We won't be able to fairly judge the Iraq intervention for another 30 years. If it brings stability, some form of democracy, a greater measure of peace, economic improvement and a higher quality of life for citizens (particularly women) in the middle East, it will not have been abysmal at all.

Unfortunately, Bush felt he had to "buy votes" to support his Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which meant he had to go along with people that wanted to support increased domestic spending. I'm been a pretty strong supporter of Bush on here (one of the few), but even I feel he sold his soul to the devil to get funding for his military needs. I'd much rather he had attacked the increased domestic spending and let his military needs live or die on their own merits (although I'll admit that such a position is much easier me to state than perhaps live with had I been the CIC).

 

I'm also one of the few on here that doesn't think his overseas intervention was abysmal (or at least feels it's way too early to make that judgment). We won't be able to fairly judge the Iraq intervention for another 30 years. If it brings stability, some form of democracy, a greater measure of peace, economic improvement and a higher quality of life for citizens (particularly women) in the middle East, it will not have been abysmal at all.

I totally agree with this.

Unfortunately, Bush felt he had to "buy votes" to support his Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which meant he had to go along with people that wanted to support increased domestic spending. I'm been a pretty strong supporter of Bush on here (one of the few), but even I feel he sold his soul to the devil to get funding for his military needs. I'd much rather he had attacked the increased domestic spending and let his military needs live or die on their own merits (although I'll admit that such a position is much easier me to state than perhaps live with had I been the CIC).

 

I'm also one of the few on here that doesn't think his overseas intervention was abysmal (or at least feels it's way too early to make that judgment). We won't be able to fairly judge the Iraq intervention for another 30 years. If it brings stability, some form of democracy, a greater measure of peace, economic improvement and a higher quality of life for citizens (particularly women) in the middle East, it will not have been abysmal at all.

I'm not one to judge the specific results of each specific intervention yet either- too early. I'm also very undecided on my current exact position on Iraq. I just think that our country has been way to quick to intervene in any situation- this holds true for Bush and Clinton. For example, there was not a single suicide attack in Iraq's history before 2003, when we stationed troops there. I think the same holds true for Lebanon in the 1980's- after we (and the French) removed our troops, the suicide attacks ended. I think that we have a track record of way too much intervention.

I'm not one to judge the specific results of each specific intervention yet either- too early. I'm also very undecided on my current exact position on Iraq. I just think that our country has been way to quick to intervene in any situation- this holds true for Bush and Clinton. For example, there was not a single suicide attack in Iraq's history before 2003, when we stationed troops there. I think the same holds true for Lebanon in the 1980's- after we (and the French) removed our troops, the suicide attacks ended. I think that we have a track record of way too much intervention.

You're right, now Hamas just lobs rockets into Israel from there.

As much as you appear to believe that Rush is bluntly and brutally honest, and that people don't like him because he's right....I believe he is bluntly and brutally trying to influence politics with his own opinions, which I don't believe are right.

 

:thumb::thumb:

I don't think Rush has as much influence as people suspect simply because the great majority of his audience already supports him and his views and those that listen that aren't on his side do so to reaffirm their feelings.

 

I'm not saying that Rush DOES have much influence, but I do find it interesting that almost every politician in Washington, from BHO to Colin Powell seem to be VERY concerned about what he's saying. It's like they are tuning in every day listening to the EIB. Rush is getting a lot, and I do mean a lot of attention from the top. Interesting.

I'm not saying that Rush DOES have much influence, but I do find it interesting that almost every politician in Washington, from BHO to Colin Powell seem to be VERY concerned about what he's saying. It's like they are tuning in every day listening to the EIB. Rush is getting a lot, and I do mean a lot of attention from the top. Interesting.

I have seen more Rush Limbaugh since Obama has been elected than I had seen the previous decade. If people do not want to know what he has to say (remember, he is a radio personality), do not tune in. His message has never waivered. However, he has been catapulted by the media and the Obama administration as the head of the Republican party. It really is a smart strategy if you want to marginalize the GOP.

I'm not one to judge the specific results of each specific intervention yet either- too early. I'm also very undecided on my current exact position on Iraq. I just think that our country has been way to quick to intervene in any situation- this holds true for Bush and Clinton. For example, there was not a single suicide attack in Iraq's history before 2003, when we stationed troops there. I think the same holds true for Lebanon in the 1980's- after we (and the French) removed our troops, the suicide attacks ended. I think that we have a track record of way too much intervention.

 

 

Surely you don't agree with Hussein's method of preventing suicide attacks do you?

 

Not only weren't there any suicide attacks, there were no free elections, no free speech, no political dissent, etc., etc., etc.

I have seen more Rush Limbaugh since Obama has been elected than I had seen the previous decade. If people do not want to know what he has to say (remember, he is a radio personality), do not tune in. His message has never waivered. However, he has been catapulted by the media and the Obama administration as the head of the Republican party. It really is a smart strategy if you want to marginalize the GOP.

 

And that is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do. If the Republicans can be portrayed as being the party of the far, far right, then Obama, Nancy and Harry seem to be more towards the middle and don't look as bad to the majority of Americans that are more moderate and centrist. Smart strategy by the Democrats; dishonest but smart. We'll get another chance to see if the American voters are stupid enough to buy it.

You're right, now Hamas just lobs rockets into Israel from there.

Good point

Surely you don't agree with Hussein's method of preventing suicide attacks do you?

 

Not only weren't there any suicide attacks, there were no free elections, no free speech, no political dissent, etc., etc., etc.

LN, I really hope you aren't implying that I agree with Hussein's methods.

 

It is a fine line at where we intervene in foreign affairs. Personally, I think we have been way too quick to intervene- but like I said, my thoughts on Iraq, specifically, aren't too sure. On the other hand, I sometimes wonder how effective we can be- yes, we've taken Hussein out of office, getting rid of genocide and suppression, but it's also led to an increase in people willing to give their lives just to kill Americans. I'm not a foreign policy expert- these are just things that I ponder about.

Rush has just become a shock jock, who really says nothing of consequence or importance, I'm with Colin Powell on this one.

I wonder why no one on the left will debate with Rush?? They say he is a blow hard,etc.. But try as they may they can't dispute his facts... Why do they fear a lowly radio personality???

I wonder why no one on the left will debate with Rush?? They say he is a blow hard,etc.. But try as they may they can't dispute his facts... Why do they fear a lowly radio personality???

I'm not sure Rush debates. He states. Besides, that is exactly what his detractors are doing buy mounting the media attacks they have. If I'm Rush, I prefer this. They get a 5 second sound bite, and he gets 4 hours to respond.

 

What I find funny, is that everytime somebody reacts to something Linbaugh has said, his bank account goes cha ching!

I wonder why no one on the left will debate with Rush?? They say he is a blow hard,etc.. But try as they may they can't dispute his facts... Why do they fear a lowly radio personality???

 

 

Not just Limbaugh, but pretty much all political "entertainers", it's useless to try and "debate" them. None of them allow true debate. They want to ask questions, then interrupt the person answering, and then disdanefully disparage the credibility of their foe. It doesn't matter whether it's the "right" or the "left", whether one side is "correct". It's not debate, it's disrespectful, and the message gets lost in the drama.

Not just Limbaugh, but pretty much all political "entertainers", it's useless to try and "debate" them. None of them allow true debate. They want to ask questions, then interrupt the person answering, and then disdanefully disparage the credibility of their foe. It doesn't matter whether it's the "right" or the "left", whether one side is "correct". It's not debate, it's disrespectful, and the message gets lost in the drama.

I'm not talking about call-in to his show... The left even refuses formal debate on their terms...