There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup." By Rush Limbaugh


PDA






Desertdog
October 17, 2005, 05:58 PM
Holding Court
There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110007417

BY RUSH LIMBAUGH
Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m.

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.




We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles. And that's the nature of our current debate over the nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures, to make this decision.
Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen states.

For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda. They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda. So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected when the president made his nomination.

Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP. They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.

The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.





The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton.
The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion. It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.

The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression. Beyond looking to the past for their salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we conservatives will continue to focus on making history.
Mr. Limbaugh is a radio-show host. This is the latest in our occasional series.

If you enjoyed reading about "There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup." By Rush Limbaugh" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MrTuffPaws
October 17, 2005, 06:15 PM
Good golly, what has Rush turned into? :barf: He used to be funny back in the early 90's. No he just spews with the rest pundits spew. What a waste of talent.

RealGun
October 17, 2005, 06:36 PM
These conservative arguments re the SCOTUS are consistently disingenuous. All they really care about is outlawing abortion. :barf:

I still say that stacking the Court is not the way to deal with the real problems of finding jurisdiction where there is none and finding things in the Constitution that aren't there. This is all the fault of Congress for not challenging the Court, especially those Justices with opinions in favor of highly questionable rulings. If Congress won't do it, lawyers sticking up for lawyers, the President should speak up.

dasmi
October 17, 2005, 06:40 PM
These conservative arguments re the SCOTUS are consistently disingenuous. All they really care about is outlawing abortion.

No, that isn't all we care about.

RealGun
October 17, 2005, 06:52 PM
No, that isn't all we care about.

THR conservatives, including me, are different than the ones calling themselves conservatives and making the arguments in the media. Listen to the rest of the media and the special interest groups. You rarely hear any concern voiced except re abortion or ancillary to abortion. Those who voted for Bush hoping for some influence on the Supreme Court picks and screaming now were not thinking about interstate commerce and eminent domain when they voted, trust me. Among those who call themselves conservatives, the church people have one and only one concern...use the law to impose their beliefs on everyone. They aren't truly concerned about how constitutionally questionable Roe v Wade might have been. They hate it because it substantially legalized abortion.

Monkeyleg
October 17, 2005, 07:02 PM
"Those who voted for Bush hoping for some influence on the Supreme Court picks and screaming now were not thinking about interstate commerce and eminent domain when they voted, trust me."

I voted for Bush in large part because of the potential for him to appoint justices to the Court, and abortion is not my issue. The Second Amendment is one of many that concerns me. And Harriet Miers concerns me.

Kurush
October 17, 2005, 07:16 PM
Wow, that has to be the most utterly content-free editorial I've ever read, Maureen Dowd notwithstanding. When did he go from being a clever gadfly to being majority whip?

rick_reno
October 17, 2005, 07:29 PM
People say the darnest things while in an OxyContin haze.

Biker
October 17, 2005, 08:20 PM
A true excersise in hypocrisy and duplicity, this Rush guy. His main agenda is advancing the Repub party at the expense of the country as a whole and the BOR in particular. I remember him often referring to "long-haired dope smokers" on a number of occasions with disdain. I suppose that being a short-haired, chubby oxy user is more respectable. Apparantly so, in any case.
He falls under the same umbrella as Michael Moore in my book-easily dismissable to anyone with an open mind.
Biker

TexasRifleman
October 17, 2005, 08:23 PM
These conservative arguments re the SCOTUS are consistently disingenuous. All they really care about is outlawing abortion.

Actually, as a conservative, the abortion argument is about 478th on my list of things to care about. Abortion interests me not at all, there are much more important issues.

That one just gets the press and attention because it's so inflammatory.

grampster
October 17, 2005, 09:04 PM
I'm another person who voted for W because of the potentiality of bringing the SCOTUS back from the Left Wing. I don't want a Right Wing court, either. I want one that looks at the Constitution and what does IT say about a particular thing. Too much law has been written from the bench and that is not good. I never trusted Bush 41, and lately W has begun to look just like his father. He signed McCain-Feingold, he supports "reasonable" gun bans, he looks the other way as our borders are violated, He is attempting to buy a legacy of a "get along" guy by spending us into oblivion. He tries to accomodate folks who hate him. A worthy Christian principle. But he doesn't understand that governing with a backbone is not necessarily repaying the hate with like behavior.

Regarding terrorism: He has that right! A line needed to be drawn and W happened to be in the guy in charge when that moment happened. My only complaint in that regard is we are not being as pro-active as we could. Nor did he trust us to understand the necessity of drawing that line by speaking to the fact we were at war with a religious apostacy (not a religion itself) that has its tentacles so entwined thorughout the world with out ginning it up with some inflamatory propaganda that was accurate but not momentarily urgent. Wahhabist Islam wants a world wide Wahhabi Caliphate and they are patient and stubborn and will not countenance anything else. Talking won't get it done. It IS about oil. Energy is the lubricant to civilization. Whether everyone agrees or not, America is the glue that holds civilization together. Energy will propel and enlarge the benefits of a civil society throughout the world. If we fracture and fall apart as a indivisible nation, the world will collapse into total barbarism. Sadly, the left has no clue to the ramifications of their polity of isolationism, pacifism, tree hugging and Coca Cola hand holding.

I fear that the Constitution is looked at by both major parties as a document to be twisted into saying whatever the conventional wisdom wants it to say. We should have legislators, presidents and judges who rather look at how do we conform to what IT says. That has not happened for a long time now. In a selfish sort of way, I'm glad I'm old so I don't have to live much longer watching that document being treated as if it were a high school term paper.

beerslurpy
October 17, 2005, 09:05 PM
We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism.

Gosh, that wacky Rush Limbaugh is so unpredictable. Will he say something in support of Bush or merely in support of the Republican party platform in general?

Also, how can you support the "war on terrorism" in the same breath that you support individual liberties, the rule of law and small government? The war on terror has dramatically increased the size and intrusiveness of every aspect of government. Not only that, it has lead to all sorts of creative ways of evading the laws so that we can more effectively torture or detain suspected terrorists without habeas corpus.

What the hell is Rush smoking? He needs to quit being a shill for the Rooseveltian party and get back to his (paleo+libertarian, not neo) conservative roots. He is doing the conservatives a disservice by blindly supporting the party, right or wrong.

rick_reno
October 17, 2005, 09:21 PM
Gosh, that wacky Rush Limbaugh is so unpredictable. Will he say something in support of Bush or merely in support of the Republican party platform in general?

Also, how can you support the "war on terrorism" in the same breath that you support individual liberties, the rule of law and small government? The war on terror has dramatically increased the size and intrusiveness of every aspect of government. Not only that, it has lead to all sorts of creative ways of evading the laws so that we can more effectively torture or detain suspected terrorists without habeas corpus.

What the hell is Rush smoking? He needs to quit being a shill for the Rooseveltian party and get back to his (paleo+libertarian, not neo) conservative roots. He is doing the conservatives a disservice by blindly supporting the party, right or wrong.

Beer - a couple of points. First, it's not the "war on terroism". You haven't been paying attention - it now the "struggle against global extremism". The "war on terrorism" wasn't selling so they renamed it. The new "struggle against global extremism" is bigger, brighter, better, guaranteed to take off excess weight, restore hair loss and make your clothes come out of the wash looking like new. Learn to like it - it's going to be a big hit.

Second, it's easy to support this "struggle" and individual liberties. Try this, cram enough prescription pain killers down your gullet to kill pony and you'll be amazed at what you can and can't support. Give it another year, Rush will getting instructions directly from God and we know how wacko things can get when that happens.

PCGS65
October 17, 2005, 09:31 PM
Rush is my hero. People dislike him because they can't handle the truth and hate being proven wrong. I have an autographed copy of his first book.

This should get the pot boiling. :fire:

idakfan
October 17, 2005, 09:39 PM
I thought it was going to start out:

I love being a synthetic-heroin gobbler.

Here's Rush a few months ago:

"Put all marijuana users in jail! They're criminals!" (He then Pops 50 heroin pills during commercial break).

GoRon
October 17, 2005, 09:43 PM
We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism.

I do a lot of driving and will listen to Rush on occassion.

In my limited listening I have heard him many times bemoan the fact that this administration is pro big government.

He certainly isn't a cheer leader for Ms. Miers either.

He definately supports the President on the war on terrror and that trumps much in his mind.

I voted for President Bush with the Supreme Court in mind. Abortion is only one of the issues that they have FUBARed.

I thought the article was good. He didn't say that this administration was living up to the ideals of the" conservative movement" at all. Actually it said the opposite. The debate is healthy only because the administration isn't living up to its promises and the crackdown is against this administration!

Biker
October 17, 2005, 09:44 PM
Rush is my hero. People dislike him because they can't handle the truth and hate being proven wrong. I have an autographed copy of his first book.

This should get the pot boiling. :fire:
I'm sure that you're joking, right? The pot has been approaching the boiling point for quite awhile now. Can 280 million frogs be wrong?
Biker

antsi
October 17, 2005, 09:45 PM
I voted for Bush in large part because of the potential for him to appoint justices to the Court, and abortion is not my issue. The Second Amendment is one of many that concerns me. And Harriet Miers concerns me.

My sentiments exactly.

Standing Wolf
October 17, 2005, 09:47 PM
Listen to the rest of the media and the special interest groups. You rarely hear any concern voiced except re abortion or ancillary to abortion.

The national leftist extremist so-called "news" media are doing their best to make everything an abortion issue in the hope of scaring women away from the Republicans. I think it's their last bogeyman.

RealGun
October 17, 2005, 09:52 PM
The national leftist extremist so-called "news" media are doing their best to make everything an abortion issue in the hope of scaring women away from the Republicans. I think it's their last bogeyman.

Are you saying it is a conspiracy?

sturmruger
October 17, 2005, 10:13 PM
Rush is one of the most brillant political minds in history. He says everything for a reason. People that attack him for his past drug problem usually do so because they don't have anything inteligent to to respond.

Listen to what he says for a full week and see if you still feel the same. He is a great American.

longhorngunman
October 17, 2005, 10:29 PM
+1, Sturmruger:) . Rush is indeed a great American and has consistently showed the American people what the Libs really stand for and for this the socialists absolutely despise him. Noticed the roaches have been infiltrating THR as of late:rolleyes: .

xd9fan
October 17, 2005, 10:43 PM
I agree with realgun.......the main issue is that Congress is to weak(or simply does not care) to be an active check on SCOTUS rulings.

Biker
October 17, 2005, 10:58 PM
Rush is one of the most brillant political minds in history. He says everything for a reason. People that attack him for his past drug problem usually do so because they don't have anything inteligent to to respond.

Listen to what he says for a full week and see if you still feel the same. He is a great American.
Are you doing oxy too? Address his hypocrisy, if you would. Brilliant political mind? Possibly. What does that have to do with honesty and integrity?
Biker

Biker
October 17, 2005, 11:00 PM
+1, Sturmruger:) . Rush is indeed a great American and has consistently showed the American people what the Libs really stand for and for this the socialists absolutely despise him. Noticed the roaches have been infiltrating THR as of late:rolleyes: .
So if someone disagrees with 'El Rushbo', they're a cockroach?
Biker

insidious_calm
October 17, 2005, 11:00 PM
Look, I don't like like abortion, AT ALL! That said, the LAST thing on my mind is whether or not Meirs is pro-life. Roe IS bad law, but not because it legalized abortion. Brown V. Board is bad law too, and NOT because it upheld blacks equal rights either. I wholeheartedly agree with the ends, but the means still = bad law. Abortion and education are both issues for the states to decide, IMO.

What I want from the President and congress too, is an assurance that the nominee will do one thing and one thing only, everytime, and that's be faithful to the U.S. Constitution. I don't care about Roe as it relates to abortion. I do care about looking to foreign law and finding 'clauses' in the constitution where none exist to push a socialist, leftist, right wing, communist, gay, black, white, yellow, nazi, pro-choice, anti-gun, pink, purple or environmentalist (did I miss any?) agenda. If you don't get that then there is nothing left to talk about. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION!



I.C.

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 11:05 PM
Rush is one of the most brillant political minds in history. He says everything for a reason. People that attack him for his past drug problem usually do so because they don't have anything inteligent to to respond.

Listen to what he says for a full week and see if you still feel the same. He is a great American.

+1

Ditto.

Biker
October 17, 2005, 11:10 PM
Good God. Ditto/Koolaid heads. The Oxy King is a great corporate/Repub Party whore. Address his hypocrisy, if nothing else.
Biker

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 11:14 PM
Good God. Ditto/Koolaid heads. The Oxy King is a great corporate/Repub Party whore. Address his hypocrisy, if nothing else.
Biker

Everyone drives a different car.;)

Biker
October 17, 2005, 11:16 PM
Fair enough. Fair enough...:)
edit: That still doesn't address his hypocrisy, but the point is made.
Biker

macavada
October 17, 2005, 11:39 PM
Wow, that has to be the most utterly content-free editorial I've ever read, Maureen Dowd notwithstanding. When did he go from being a clever gadfly to being majority whip?

I think his becoming the "majority whip" happened during Shrub's administration. I remember listening to him back in 89. He was very clear about not being a Republican so much, but being a conservative. I liked his message about personal responsibility and one picking him/herself up by their own bootstraps and being self sufficient.

Even when Clinton was in office, as rabid anti-Clinton as Rush was, he wasn't a partyline Republican. But, in the recent years of Shrub's administration (notice how I capitalize "Shrub", it's out of respect for the office), Rush has fallen right in line with the right-wing talking-points methodology for getting out the consistent singular message. He's a party guy all the way (no pun intented) now. He's no longer a conservative, as he once was. He's more interested in winning than he is in advancing true conservative ideals.

Also, Rush wasn't such an anti-abortion guy, and he's never been very religious. His pandering to the religious right is further evidence of his desire to win, and he's shaped his argument and debate around the inclusion of their agenda.

He used to set the agenda for the conservative movement, but now he's only slightly more intelligent than Sean Hannity.

For kicks, check this out: http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.htm


Edited to add: :evil: :evil: :evil:

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 11:40 PM
Fair enough. Fair enough...:)
edit: That still doesn't address his hypocrisy, but the point is made.
Biker

Yeah, you have a point. However, who hasn't done something in their lives that they regret?

roo_ster
October 18, 2005, 12:44 AM
Quote:
We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism.

Also, how can you support the "war on terrorism" in the same breath that you support individual liberties, the rule of law and small government?

Pretty easily. I support an originalist view of the constitution, which is pretty pro-liberty, IMO. I also support killing as many militant muslims and their supporters as quickly as possible, in an attempt to protect this country and its citizens from their attentions. They can do other things (disrupt organizations, chase financial contributions, etc) in the "GWOT," but the killing part is essential. Like sunscreen, it ought to be applied liberally & often.

It's hard to fly an airliner into a building when they have received a double-tap of .45ACP to their cranium or are running down a filth-filled alley in some mid-east dunghole of a city in fear for their lives.

beerslurpy
October 18, 2005, 01:23 AM
Fine, explain the TSA and the useless DHS.

RealGun
October 18, 2005, 05:39 AM
Rush is an entertainer who tries to be popular. I would be concerned about what his audience finds appealing or even credible.

He's rich...I'm not.

One of Many
October 18, 2005, 04:53 PM
The whole issue of Abortion rests on the fact that the Supreme Court has refused to define a Human Fetus/Embryo as a Person/People. The stance taken by the court was that Human Life does not deserve to be considered a Person/People until some undefined point in the development cycle is reached. We see a lot of laws being passed, and challenged in court, based on where the fetus is in the 9 month passage from conception to birth. While the Judeo/Christian faith takes the Biblical stance that a child in the womb is a person, science has yet to define when that child becomes a person, and the SCotUS said that in the absence of any certainty on that issue, it would decide the case based on the "rights" of the Mother. They had to come up with an undefined "right" (Privacy) in order to allow abortion on demand, so that our country could be as sophisticated as the European countries.

There is a risk that there could be a future SCotUS ruling that adults with less than Full Mental Capacity could have status as Persons/People rescinded. This could also happen for those with Debilitating Physical Disabilities. We are already seeing this in some European countries, where Medical Doctors are allowed to "Euthanize" people without informing them/relatives prior to the act. In my book that constitute Murder, but it is legal in those countries.

The next step in this process of reducing people to expendble animals, would be to make gun ownership, or religious orientation a determining factor for becoming Non-People. Hitler and the Nazis did this, and millions of people were exterminated.

Federal Law makes it illegal to interfere with the reproductive process of endangered species of animals. Picking up an EGG of a Protected Bird or Sea Turtle can make you a Felon, and put you behind bars for years. Even though the bird/animal has not been born, it has rights under our Federal Law.

Why is it that Human life that has not been born does not have similar rights? Why is it that we have doctors terminating Human life before birth with immunity, but a drunk that causes an auto accident that kills an unborn child is convicted of manslaughter for killing the property of the pregnant mother? We put mothers in jail when they use drugs, drink excessively, or do other things that can cause birth defects; so why do we allow them to let Doctors Abort the child?

Life begins at conception. The gamete/embryo can be identified as being of human species. It takes in nourishment and grows, developing in the process, provided that the correct environment is provided to meet the needs of that life (just like we incubate eggs). The mother is nothing more than an incubator for a separate life form, once conception has occurred.

All of our laws against Murder and Manslaughter are based on Moral, not scientific standards. Why is it that Morals are excluded from the matter of deciding the legality of abortion? If we can exclude Morals from consideration of abortion, we can exclude morals from consideration of the legality of executing all gun owners. It is just a matter of time and degree.

JohnBT
October 18, 2005, 05:02 PM
"notice how I capitalize "Shrub", it's out of respect for the office"

I noticed. It's an even more childish affectation than not capitalizing it.

John

Biker
October 18, 2005, 05:21 PM
Yeah, you have a point. However, who hasn't done something in their lives that they regret?
Why, me of course!
:rolleyes:
Fact is, as many mistakes as I've made, I've never attacked other folks for making the same mistakes as me, especially while I was still engaged in the same dumbass behavior, and I sure as hell didn't make millions while I was doing it. Kinda reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart, preaching against the sins of the flesh on Sunday morning when the previous Saturday night, he was being pleasured by a prostitute in the back of his limo.
Or Rush speaking out against "long-haired dope-smokers" while he was washing down illegal oxys with his martini.
I get your point, and a valid one it is, but if you set yourself up as a saint, don't get caught sinning.
Biker

M-Rex
October 18, 2005, 06:11 PM
Why, me of course!
:rolleyes:
Fact is, as many mistakes as I've made, I've never attacked other folks for making the same mistakes as me, especially while I was still engaged in the same dumbass behavior, and I sure as hell didn't make millions while I was doing it. Kinda reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart, preaching against the sins of the flesh on Sunday morning when the previous Saturday night, he was being pleasured by a prostitute in the back of his limo.
Or Rush speaking out against "long-haired dope-smokers" while he was washing down illegal oxys with his martini.
I get your point, and a valid one it is, but if you set yourself up as a saint, don't get caught sinning.
Biker

For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of...

...well, you know.

pax
October 18, 2005, 06:26 PM
One of Many ~

That post doesn't belong on THR.

If you want to argue abortion, do it elsewhere.

See http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html for more information.

pax

gunsmith
October 18, 2005, 06:41 PM
But I am much more concerned with securing the 2nd amendment before the republicans blow it and we have to deal with president hilary.:barf:

No_Brakes23
October 18, 2005, 07:17 PM
Wow, I never realized how many kool-aid drinkers were on this board.

A great American? Sure, and Abbie Hoffman was a patriot, right?:rolleyes:

I thought Rush was an idiot when I was a die-hard Republican and a Christian, before his drug hypocrisy came out.

Certainly, Rush is capable of saying something intelligent, just like the proverbial broken clock that is still correct twice per day.

Rush Limbaugh = Al Franken = Bill Maher = Howard Stern = Michael Moore. Raving idiots, the lot of them. They might vehemently disagree on certain issues, but their blather sounds the same when you remove the issue and look at the verbage.

I once read an interesting article contrasting and comparing Stern and Limbaugh. It stated that they had voted for the same presidential candidate for the last 20 years.

One of Many
October 18, 2005, 08:57 PM
One of Many ~

That post doesn't belong on THR.

If you want to argue abortion, do it elsewhere.

See http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html for more information.

pax


There are only a few house rules:

1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.
2.) Multiple user registrations are prohibited.
3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.

We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of abortion, religion and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately. Threads which deal with other subjects, but which mention abortion, religion or sexual orientation as a side issue, may be allowed to continue, but will be closely scrutinized, and closed or deleted if they "cross the line".



Please note that my comments are related to firearms or civil liberties issues. I made a direct connection between the issue of Abortion and the civil liberties of firearms owners; the fact that the same type of thinking that produces legal abortion can lead to legal execution of people that own firearms, and that it has happened in the past.

When I see 90 percent of the threads on this board discussing things that have little or no bearing on firearms and their ownership, and I get slammed for posting something that is directly related to the well being of firearms owners, I have to wonder why I have been singled out. If my statements are false, or provocative, I can understand the concern, but I do not think that is the case with my posting.

Please explain why that post is unsuitable, based on the posted rules.

GoRon
October 18, 2005, 09:46 PM
Please explain why that post is unsuitable, based on the posted rules.

My guess is that the abortion issue tends to eclipse other issues when it is drawn into the discussion. The original topic will soon disappear from the discussion and this will become an abortion thread. Abortion isn't directly related to the mission of this site.

GoRon
October 18, 2005, 10:24 PM
Rush Limbaugh = Al Franken = Bill Maher = Howard Stern = Michael Moore. Raving idiots, the lot of them. They might vehemently disagree on certain issues, but their blather sounds the same when you remove the issue and look at the verbage.

Heh heh, it is obvious you and several other posters don't listen to Rush. This post inspired me to listen to Rush for about 40 minutes today. It was 20 minutes defending his position that H. Miers was a bad pick. He is feeling heat from the "koolaid drinkers" himself.

Biker
October 18, 2005, 10:45 PM
It's his job to cicle the wagons for the Repubs. Rah Rah and all that. Anyone with an open mind can see through the shills and setups the screeners orchestrate so well. The people that *want* to believe will be persuaded.
End of story. He's just lucky that his job doesn't require a UA, I'm guessing.
Biker

GoRon
October 18, 2005, 10:58 PM
Anyone with an open mind can see through the shills and setups the screeners orchestrate so well.
OK Biker, I'll take your word for it.:rolleyes: Sometimes "open minds" are incapable of keeping anything of substance in them, it all runs out.

The people that *want* to believe will be persuaded.
And those that believe contrary won't, so what? The people that listen to him generally agree with him or listen for ENTERTAINMENT.

Whats the matter, are you so insecure in your beliefs that you feel threatened by those that disagree.

I noticed the oponents of Rush resorted to character assasination right away.

Biker
October 18, 2005, 11:04 PM
Well GoRon, his 'character' is not only easy to assasinate, it invites the act seein's how he chooses to attack the character of everone who doesn't toe the party line, generally speaking.
BTW, sorry you saw the need to go ad hom.
Biker

GoRon
October 18, 2005, 11:12 PM
BTW, sorry you saw the need to go ad hom.

I should have added a neener:neener: to show no malice.

Insinuating that those who listen to Rush don't have "open minds" and "want to believe" seemed to be the first shot over the bow.

it invites the act seein's how he chooses to attack the character of everone who doesn't toe the party line, generally speaking.
I respectfully dissagree with your assesment of his positions. He has clearly stated his unhappiness with the big government tendencies of this administration. I recall his warnings to the Whitehouse about the border situation. If I sat and thought about it I could come up with more.

He is a Republican and will do what he thinks is best for the Reagan wing of the party.

CAnnoneer
October 18, 2005, 11:16 PM
I noticed the oponents of Rush resorted to character assasination right away.

So if the Enronists get on radio and argue pickpockets should have their hands severed, one is not to call them out on it? :D :rolleyes:



Interestingly, the same people that say they are in favor of individual liberties and RKBA, so often turn around and argue for the government regulating people's genitals. I guess the slogan is

"My rights are inviolate, yours are negotiable"

Blindness or hypocrisy. Take your pick.:barf:

Biker
October 18, 2005, 11:26 PM
GoRon
I listen to the man from time to time. I often learn a thing or two but my BS filter is always close to maxed out. I insinuated nothing intentionally aside from my belief that most 'ditto-heads' listen to him in order to have their own hopes and beliefs validated by El Rushbo and for reassurance that 'everything is ok'.
It isn't, likely never has been, and is as far away from that concept as it has ever been in this country since the last Founder died. No offense intended.
Biker

GoRon
October 18, 2005, 11:30 PM
So if the Enronists get on radio and argue pickpockets should have their hands severed, one is not to call them out on it?


His drug problems are fair game as far as I am concerned. I don't care myself, having a sordid past myself. Actually my present is a little sordid at times.:evil:

Interestingly, the same people that say they are in favor of individual liberties and RKBA, so often turn around and argue for the government regulating people's genitals. I guess the slogan is

"My rights are inviolate, yours are negotiable"

Blindness or hypocrisy. Take your pick.

Just because you are confused as to the role of government and want it to put its imprimatur of approvel on certain behaviors the majority of americans disagree with doesn't make me blind or a hypocrite.

CAnnoneer
October 18, 2005, 11:45 PM
Just because you are confused as to the role of government and want it to put its imprimatur of approvel on certain behaviors the majority of americans disagree with doesn't make me blind or a hypocrite.

Absolutely the same, word-for-word, argument is made by bolshevik antis here in CA, saying that I am not entitled to my firearms because THE MAJORITY in CA disagrees with my practice of gunownership and thus the laws and the constitution must change accordingly.

:banghead:

By the way, "bolshevik" in Russian literally means "person of the majority". So any arguments about the majority being justified in stripping the minority of their rights is basically a bolshevik argument, IMHO.

It is nice to know where a man stands.

GoRon
October 19, 2005, 12:15 AM
thus the laws and the constitution must change accordingly

We/I don't want to change any laws. We just want them interpreted to mean what those that wrote them meant.

The left is the one that wants government approval, sanction and in some cases funding for things that are NOT spelled out in the constitution.

You have my blessing to do whatever you want with your genitals as long as it doesn't kill someone.

What this has to do with Rush or the conservatives voicing disapproval of this administration I don't know.

If you want to debate abortion/gay rights or whatever you are talking about bring it to http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/viewforum.php?id=1

No_Brakes23
October 19, 2005, 02:07 AM
behaviors the majority of americans disagree with

So if Firearms ownership became a "behavior the majority of americans disagree with", you would be all for gun control? Or is the 2nd amendment the only one you care about?

We just want them interpreted to mean what those that wrote them meant.

Wow, that sounds an awful lot like:

"We believe the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons, nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

That's straight from the mis-named ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/About/Aboutlist.cfm?c=301#3_5)'s website.

If you enjoyed reading about "There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup." By Rush Limbaugh" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!