• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rush Limbaugh attacked by Caller

UtahBill said:
Rush attacked? Why do they go after the soft, easy targets? The poor man needs our help. Every conservative here should send him money....
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true fake moderate.
 
American said:
Spoken like a true fake moderate.
Click to expand...

Wow, you caught me.....:2razz:
I almost always vote republican/conservative on federal candidates. Occasionally some state Democrat/liberal candidates/issues will get my vote.
Just because a person doesn't follow YOUR narrow and ignorant view of things doesn't entitle you to question their overall position.
 
UtahBill said:
Wow, you caught me.....:2razz:
I almost always vote republican/conservative on federal candidates. Occasionally some state Democrat/liberal candidates/issues will get my vote.
Just because a person doesn't follow YOUR narrow and ignorant view of things doesn't entitle you to question their overall position.
Click to expand...

You must conform or ye shall be labeled a pinko communist:mrgreen:
 
winston53660 said:
You must conform or ye shall be labeled a pinko communist:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The GOP should be ashamed to have Dittoheads in its membership. They would be better off admitting the KKK. Wait, how do members of the KKK usually vote, if not to the far right?:2razz:
 
UtahBill said:
The GOP should be ashamed to have Dittoheads in its membership. They would be better off admitting the KKK. Wait, how do members of the KKK usually vote, if not to the far right?:2razz:
Click to expand...

Oh really ?

Which Party has, as its oldest and longest serving legislator, a former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK ??

Oh thats right, its the Democrats and Senator Robert Byrd.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd]Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
UtahBill said:
Old, tired news.....
Click to expand...

Not Really, the man is a sitting Senator.

Just shows how much Democrats care about principle when there are committee seats at stake.
 
Voidwar said:
Not Really, the man is a sitting Senator.

Just shows how much Democrats care about principle when there are committee seats at stake.
Click to expand...

he has been repentant, a politically expedient thing to do....
And I am sure he was sincere about it...:lol:
 
Rush gets these kinds of calls all the time and nothing new. *Shrugs*
 
vauge said:
Rush claims to be a Republican, so do I.

We differ greatly on our values and concerns.

Who is the most Republican?
Click to expand...

I am an avid listener of Rush's and also a Republican; do elucidate what values and concerns differs between you and Rush. I would like to hear them.
 
Nightmarekill said:
OK guys, my first thread =) Im not sure if im in the right place but it looked like it could fit under this subject.. but to the point

Republican Caller Tells Limbaugh He's a "Brainwashed Nazi"

A caller calls in and call RUSH a BRAINWASHED NAZI... then RUSH retaliates calling him brainwashed - like he wasnt a good enough republican. This man is my Hero of the Day!
Click to expand...

So this man, who is a seminar caller, is your hero because he called a talk show and insulted the host? I would suggest your bar is a tad low.

:rofl
 
UtahBill said:
welcome, and be careful saying anything bad about Rush, there are posters here that stroke out when that happens...:lol:
Click to expand...

Got any evidence of this? Of course you don't, honesty and reality are obviously not your forte'.

I will say that he is always in safe company when spewing idiotic bile about Fox, Hannity, Coulter and Rush at DP though. :roll:
 
danarhea said:
Ron Paul is the most Republican - At least, he is the most Republican according to what the GOP used to stand for.
Click to expand...

What makes Ron Paul more Republican than your average Republican? I'd like to know because I adamantly disagreed with his many of his positions, particularly regarding Iraq and the ME where he sounded more like Obama, and voted for someone else.
 
UtahBill said:
The GOP should be ashamed to have Dittoheads in its membership. They would be better off admitting the KKK. Wait, how do members of the KKK usually vote, if not to the far right?:2razz:
Click to expand...

Just when I think you have exceeded yourself in hyperbolic baseless false rhetoric, you once again super exceed my expectations.

For your edification, KKK members were more likely good ole' boy Democrats than they were Republicans.

But then, that doesn't excuse your wild-eyed insults to a group of people who happen to listen to Rush Limbaugh for the simple fact that you happen to hate Rush for reasons even you cannot possibly fabricate.

The notion that you are Conservative require willing denial or speaks to the fact that politically, you are the most confused person I have ever seen, OR, you are one hell of a liar. I am giving your the benefit of the doubt here.

I find your posts offensive not because they target me as one of Rush’s audience, but because of the blatant level of ignorance it takes to be so closed minded, uninformed and hypocritical. :roll:
 
Truth Detector said:
What makes Ron Paul more Republican than your average Republican? I'd like to know because I adamantly disagreed with his many of his positions, particularly regarding Iraq and the ME where he sounded more like Obama, and voted for someone else.
Click to expand...

Well first, note that he said is more republican based on what republicans used to be. Lets look at it from a pre 2000 stand point.

From what I understand (i'm sure more fervant Ron Paul supporters can step in and correct any).

Social issues?
- Is against forbidding private prayer in school, again mandating prayer, and against proposed a constitutional amendment to protect ones right to pray privately in school.

- Believes "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers"

- Is against Flag burning, but feels its a state not a Federal issue

- Gun Owners of America gives him an A+ raiting. He is against the assult rifle ban.

- He's against affirmative action, voting to end it in the college application process.

- Paul is against Federal BANNING of stem cell reasearch, but is also against federal subsidizing of it.

- Supports a states right to have the death penalty (but is against it at a federal level)

- Believes education should be dealt with at the local and state levels, not the federal level. Is in favor of tax credits to give people the freedom of choice in schooling.

- Against any federal effort to redefine marriage. Should be left to the states. He however does not believe it should be done through judicial activism and was against a federal amendment barring gay marriage. In favor of DOMA.

- Believes Environmental issues of polution do not need further regulation of government oversight but simply to enforce private property laws already on teh books in regards to it. Emission standards and other things he believes have no place at the federal level.

- In favor of nuclear power. Voted to repeal the gas tax. Against ethanol subsidies.

- Is against Nation Buildng and World Policing.

- Is for Free Trade, but against managed free trade agreements like NAFTA

- Against amnesty for those here iellgaly. Voted in favor of the Secure fence Act. Children born here from illegal parents shouldn't be granted automatic birth right and wants a constitutional amendment revising the 14th.

- Is for lower government spending and has a voting record to back it up.

- Is against adding new taxes or raising taxes and wishes to reduce taxes, especially finding the income tax against the spirit this country was founded on.

- Is for reducing government only to the size absolutely needed to do its core duties.

- Believes in minimal market interference.

Where his clashes come in most common are with the more current GOP in the wake of 2001.

He believes waging war on states instead of going after specific terrorists or terrorist groups is the wrong way to do things. He thinks sacrificing the former republican principles of no nation building and no world policing in the name of safety is wrong. He believes that many of the security measures taken since 9/11 that are meant to make us safer also increase the size of government and decrease the rights of individual citizens and believes that the security gained is not worth those side affects.

While I can fully understand some Republicans finding issues with his views, one can not really argue that the REASONS he is against them break from traditional conservatism.

He also has some more traditional libertarian ideas than GOP, such as agaisnt federal legislation against marijuana use and combining laws regarding marijuana with laws against hemp. His desire to move to the gold standard as well is one more traditionally libertarian.

While some of his goals for some of these things, such as wanting to get rid of entire government entities in attempting to shrink the size of government, may be a bit extreme in an end game sense they're hardly not rooted in conservative and republican ideology.

I understand the thoughts in regards to Iraq. I was much the same. But I think if people would:

1. Block out all the Ron Paul haters that make him out to be some absolutely far gone kook or a liberal in republican clothing
2. Block out all the Ron Paul lovers and nut jobs that make him out to be the second coming of christ and NOTHING he says can POSSIBLY be wrong

And just go, look at the WHOLE of his views on things, that more conservatives would actually find him...issue wise...to not be that bad of a guy after all. Ultimately, that's what I ended up doing. And after doing that I realized that while I didn't agree with him fully on Iraq, I understood and respected his position on WHY and the fact he's been consistant (something many democrats weren't). And I also realized that, taken as a whole, I agreed with him on FAR MORE issues and tursted he was telling the truth on far more issues than I did the other candidates.

So, ultimately, to answer your question. I think the thing that sets him apart then many mainstream republicans in Dan's mind...in regards to what the GOP WAS pre 2000....is the fact that there's almost no stance he has that is not rooted in conservatism, and the stances where he does split from the Republican party is generally due to a principled conservative idea (IE, against a federal ban on gay marriage, because he believes its entirely a STATE issue)
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Well first, note that he said is more republican based on what republicans used to be. Lets look at it from a pre 2000 stand point.

From what I understand (i'm sure more fervant Ron Paul supporters can step in and correct any).

Social issues?
- Is against forbidding private prayer in school, again mandating prayer, and against proposed a constitutional amendment to protect ones right to pray privately in school.

- Believes "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers"

- Is against Flag burning, but feels its a state not a Federal issue

- Gun Owners of America gives him an A+ raiting. He is against the assult rifle ban.

- He's against affirmative action, voting to end it in the college application process.

- Paul is against Federal BANNING of stem cell reasearch, but is also against federal subsidizing of it.

- Supports a states right to have the death penalty (but is against it at a federal level)

- Believes education should be dealt with at the local and state levels, not the federal level. Is in favor of tax credits to give people the freedom of choice in schooling.

- Against any federal effort to redefine marriage. Should be left to the states. He however does not believe it should be done through judicial activism and was against a federal amendment barring gay marriage. In favor of DOMA.

- Believes Environmental issues of polution do not need further regulation of government oversight but simply to enforce private property laws already on teh books in regards to it. Emission standards and other things he believes have no place at the federal level.

- In favor of nuclear power. Voted to repeal the gas tax. Against ethanol subsidies.

- Is against Nation Buildng and World Policing.

- Is for Free Trade, but against managed free trade agreements like NAFTA

- Against amnesty for those here iellgaly. Voted in favor of the Secure fence Act. Children born here from illegal parents shouldn't be granted automatic birth right and wants a constitutional amendment revising the 14th.

- Is for lower government spending and has a voting record to back it up.

- Is against adding new taxes or raising taxes and wishes to reduce taxes, especially finding the income tax against the spirit this country was founded on.

- Is for reducing government only to the size absolutely needed to do its core duties.

- Believes in minimal market interference.

Where his clashes come in most common are with the more current GOP in the wake of 2001.

He believes waging war on states instead of going after specific terrorists or terrorist groups is the wrong way to do things. He thinks sacrificing the former republican principles of no nation building and no world policing in the name of safety is wrong. He believes that many of the security measures taken since 9/11 that are meant to make us safer also increase the size of government and decrease the rights of individual citizens and believes that the security gained is not worth those side affects.

While I can fully understand some Republicans finding issues with his views, one can not really argue that the REASONS he is against them break from traditional conservatism.

He also has some more traditional libertarian ideas than GOP, such as agaisnt federal legislation against marijuana use and combining laws regarding marijuana with laws against hemp. His desire to move to the gold standard as well is one more traditionally libertarian.

While some of his goals for some of these things, such as wanting to get rid of entire government entities in attempting to shrink the size of government, may be a bit extreme in an end game sense they're hardly not rooted in conservative and republican ideology.

I understand the thoughts in regards to Iraq. I was much the same. But I think if people would:

1. Block out all the Ron Paul haters that make him out to be some absolutely far gone kook or a liberal in republican clothing
2. Block out all the Ron Paul lovers and nut jobs that make him out to be the second coming of christ and NOTHING he says can POSSIBLY be wrong

And just go, look at the WHOLE of his views on things, that more conservatives would actually find him...issue wise...to not be that bad of a guy after all. Ultimately, that's what I ended up doing. And after doing that I realized that while I didn't agree with him fully on Iraq, I understood and respected his position on WHY and the fact he's been consistant (something many democrats weren't). And I also realized that, taken as a whole, I agreed with him on FAR MORE issues and tursted he was telling the truth on far more issues than I did the other candidates.

So, ultimately, to answer your question. I think the thing that sets him apart then many mainstream republicans in Dan's mind...in regards to what the GOP WAS pre 2000....is the fact that there's almost no stance he has that is not rooted in conservatism, and the stances where he does split from the Republican party is generally due to a principled conservative idea (IE, against a federal ban on gay marriage, because he believes its entirely a STATE issue)
Click to expand...

Wow, no one can ever accuse you of NOT having a LOT to say about topics you are passionate about.

That stated, what you have shown as being his differences hardly makes him MORE of a Republican right?

My political view on Presidential material is that the Federal Government is here to provide two main functions; defense of the nation and enforce the nation’s laws.

Ron Paul’s Global view of isolationism was clearly enough to turn me off from him and declare him naive. It doesn't matter that a lot of his views about smaller Government, States rights and what role the Federal Government plays in our every day lives match my views; but that in a modern world that we live in today, isolationism is not the answer and will only lead to more serious threats to our economic and national security down the road.

Although you were extremely detailed in your examination of Ron Paul's political views, it hardly gives credence to the statement made by Dan. If anything it reinforces the notion that Dan doesn’t have a good grasp on what “is” Republican:

Originally Posted by danarhea
Ron Paul is the most Republican - At least, he is the most Republican according to what the GOP used to stand for.
 
Truth Detector said:
Wow, no one can ever accuse you of NOT having a LOT to say about topics you are passionate about.

That stated, what you have shown as being his differences hardly makes him MORE of a Republican right?
Click to expand...

But that's not what Dan said. What Dan said was this:

Ron Paul is the most Republican - At least, he is the most Republican according to what the GOP used to stand for.

Note the qualifier.

The Iraq war...which was a war or intervention followed by creating a nation state while essentially being "world police"...is against what the GOP used to stand for. Its directly against what Bush campaigned for in 2000.

Now, you can say 9/11 changed things and made the republicans change their view. And you know, I agree with you in part. That said, that doesn't change that what Dan said is essentially correct...he is probably the most, or one of the most in regards to well known conservatives, Republican person based on what the GOP used to stand for.

My political view on Presidential material is that the Federal Government is here to provide two main functions; defense of the nation and enforce the nation’s laws.

Ron Paul’s Global view of isolationism was clearly enough to turn me off from him and declare him naive. It doesn't matter that a lot of his views about smaller Government, States rights and what role the Federal Government plays in our every day lives match my views; but that in a modern world that we live in today, isolationism is not the answer and will only lead to more serious threats to our economic and national security down the road.
Click to expand...

And understandable. Everyone has their views of what the most important issues are. For you, the global war on terror seems to be tantamount. In my view, especially going into the election, I very much saw the situation we were in with the economy, the spending on the war, and the issue with immigration essentially as us putting ourselves into the "Russia" position of the cold war.

IE, we were being spent into oblivion and this time...unlike then....it wasn't one nation spending a lot causing us to keep up, but it was the terrorist being well, relatively cheap, and immigrants just streaming in while we just kept spending and spending.

So to me, going into the election, size of government, immigration, and spending were all more important than the War in Iraq to me. And as such, I was able to overlook my disagreements with Paul. I can fully understand someone who views Iraq and the WoT as the most important issue above all others to disagree.

My issue was with those that were like that and disagreed about Paul, and then would go on to call him a liberal or call anyone that supported him a liberal or go on to say that he wasn't really a conservative based on NOTHING but his view on the WoT.

Although you were extremely detailed in your examination of Ron Paul's political views, it hardly gives credence to the statement made by Dan. If anything it reinforces the notion that Dan doesn’t have a good grasp on what “is” Republican:

Originally Posted by danarhea
Ron Paul is the most Republican - At least, he is the most Republican according to what the GOP used to stand for.
Click to expand...

Nope, it shows that Dan was clearly speaking about what the GOP used to stand for, which, in regards to the only thing you have issues with Paul about, was more in line with him (and with Bush in 2000) than you and Bush post 2001
 
By American standards of libertarianism, Ron Paul would be a libertarian.

By the rest of the world standards of libertarianism, Ron Paul would most definitely be a republican.

Politics in America are so distorted that most can't even grasp the meaning of terms, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is an advocate for non-intervention.

An isolationist is someone who does no business with anyone at all for anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom