PDA

View Full Version : Rush Limbaugh=King Hypocrite


petegz28
04-14-2008, 10:26 AM
I used to listen to this guy all the time. I finally got away from the political crap cause that is just what it is.

So I turn on the radio today only to hear Rush whining about Obama and Hillary. I had to stop myself and say wait a sec...this guy has slammed McCain left and right for the last how may years?

Now all the sudden he is ok?

Just using true conservative logic I cannot see how Rush differenciates McCain from Obama and Hillary all of the sudden considering he has spent the better part of the last 7 years slamming him and calling him a Lib!

patteeu
04-14-2008, 10:29 AM
Limbaugh is still heavily critical of McCain, but it's kind of ridiculous to suggest that McCain is as liberal as Obama or Hillary. I don't see any hypocrisy here.

DaKCMan AP
04-14-2008, 10:34 AM
Is this some kind of revelation? I thought it was common knowledge. :shrug:

petegz28
04-14-2008, 10:39 AM
Limbaugh is still heavily critical of McCain, but it's kind of ridiculous to suggest that McCain is as liberal as Obama or Hillary. I don't see any hypocrisy here.

So in other words Rush has adopted the "Anyone but Bush" mentality the Kerry supoprters grasped in 04?


So I guess the man he hates so much is still better than Obama or Hilly?


PATHETIC! I have lost so much repsect for Rush over the last few years.

Taco John
04-14-2008, 10:39 AM
Limbaugh is still heavily critical of McCain, but it's kind of ridiculous to suggest that McCain is as liberal as Obama or Hillary. I don't see any hypocrisy here.


There's no principle here either.

Radar Chief
04-14-2008, 10:46 AM
So in other words Rush has adopted the "Anyone but Bush" mentality the Kerry supoprters grasped in 04?

Bush isn’t running again. :shrug:

So I guess the man he hates so much is still better than Obama or Hilly?

Pretty much. I sort of agree with him, though IMO Obama and McCain are closer to a tie for least shitty at this moment.

PATHETIC! I have lost so much repsect for Rush over the last few years.

Right, cause you were giving him a chance to begin with. ROFL
Rush is a comedian. Don't take what he says seriously, it's meant to evoke a response.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 10:48 AM
So in other words Rush has adopted the "Anyone but Bush" mentality the Kerry supoprters grasped in 04?


So I guess the man he hates so much is still better than Obama or Hilly?


PATHETIC! I have lost so much repsect for Rush over the last few years.

I really don't know what you're talking about. Presidential elections almost always come down to two viable candidates and it's very common that a voter's favorite guy isn't one of them. If all your favorites are gone and you want your vote to be something more than a protest vote, you still have to pick the better of the two. There is much to dislike about McCain IMO, but how surprising can it really be that a conservative Republican ends up finding more to like about McCain than Obama or Hillary? I don't think so.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 10:50 AM
I really don't know what you're talking about. Presidential elections almost always come down to two viable candidates and it's very common that a voter's favorite guy isn't one of them. If all your favorites are gone and you want your vote to be something more than a protest vote, you still have to pick the better of the two. There is much to dislike about McCain IMO, but how surprising can it really be that a conservative Republican ends up finding more to like about McCain than Obama or Hillary? I don't think so.



Well all I am saying is you look like a real flipping dumbass when you spend 7+ years slamming the guy you are voting for\supporting for President.

:D

patteeu
04-14-2008, 10:50 AM
There's no principle here either.

Well there's certainly an absence of the principal that would lead someone whose fringe candidate failed to get a major party nomination to look for a 3rd party fringe candidate with an equally hopeless chance of becoming president.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2008, 10:51 AM
Well there's certainly an absence of the principal that would lead someone whose fringe candidate failed to get a major party nomination to look for a 3rd party fringe candidate with an equally hopeless chance of becoming president.

If he does damage to McCain, and I think that's more the case, then it's all good in my book.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 10:55 AM
Well all I am saying is you look like a real flipping dumbass when you spend 7+ years slamming the guy you are voting for\supporting for President.

:D

Like I said, he still slams McCain. And he isn't supporting McCain for President (although he hints that it's possible he will end up holding his nose and voting for him).

When Limbaugh is implored by conservatives from the other end of the voting philosophy spectrum as you to vote for McCain as the lesser of two (three) evils, he often responds that if he really wanted to hurt McCain, he'd endorse his candidacy. Right now, he's straddling a bit. He remains critical of McCain and he refuses to endorse him, but he's even more critical of the even less conservative Hillary and Obama.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 10:55 AM
Rush Limbaugh "Hi, please vote for John McCain! The guy I have slammed at every given opportunity for the last decade!"

Radar Chief
04-14-2008, 10:57 AM
Rush Limbaugh "Hi, please vote for John McCain! The guy I have slammed at every given opportunity for the last decade!"

So, what was he saying in support of McCain?

petegz28
04-14-2008, 10:57 AM
Well the biggest problem I have now with Rush and the Right is they are NOT representing American values.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 10:58 AM
Rush Limbaugh "Hi, please vote for John McCain! The guy I have slammed at every given opportunity for the last decade!"

:spock: This really bothers you doesn't it? I think you should vote for McCain just to teach Rush a lesson.

Taco John
04-14-2008, 10:58 AM
Well there's certainly an absence of ... principal...


Indeed...

petegz28
04-14-2008, 10:59 AM
So, what was he saying in support of McCain?

It's called supoprt via inference. He spends all day yapping about some Operation Chaos and slams Obama and Hilly. He is on the Right (allegedly) and so is McCain (allegedly).

So gee let's do some simple math....:eek:

Rush wants McCain elected.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 11:00 AM
Well the biggest problem I have now with Rush and the Right is they are NOT representing American values.

Can you elaborate? What American values are not being represented by Rush and the Right that are being addressed better by Obama and Hillary than by McCain?

petegz28
04-14-2008, 11:00 AM
:spock: This really bothers you doesn't it? I think you should vote for McCain just to teach Rush a lesson.

Now hat bothers me is it is him and I guess people such as yourself that keep listening to him and thinking he is "right" about everything.

The fact is Rush and his ilk have become the mirror image of the Left.

banyon
04-14-2008, 11:01 AM
All Aboard the McCain Express
Rick Perlstein

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/perlstein

Back when the Republican presidential race was still competitive, the insults against John McCain from leading conservative voices were so extravagant they almost constituted a new literary genre. Rush Limbaugh said McCain threatened "the American way of life as we've always known it." McCain's Senate colleague Thad Cochran said, "The thought of him as President sends a cold chill down my spine." Ann Coulter charged the most unforgivable sin of all: McCain was, in fact, "a Democrat." Coulter's employer, Fox News, seconded the smear on February 7 by printing the words "John McCain (D-AZ)" under footage of the Arizona Republican.

That day was no ordinary one in the history of McCain-hate. On that afternoon, most of these figures' preferred candidate, Mitt Romney, announced at CPAC, the big annual conservative conference in Washington, that he was dropping out of the race. McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee, was booed. The next morning the conservative magazine Human Events sent out a weekly roundup of its top ten stories to its e-mail list. Eight were anti-McCain jeremiads. One called the McCain ascendancy "the new Axis of Evil." Michael Reagan's article "John McCain Hates Me" posited a "huge gap that separates McCain--whose contempt for his fellow humans is patently obvious--and my dad, Ronald Reagan," and concluded, "He has contempt for conservatives who he thinks can be duped into thinking he's one of them."

Michael Reagan, for one, would not be duped. He would not defile his father's sacred memory. At least for a week. Eight days later Reagan's article for Human Events argued, "Assuming that John McCain will be the Republican nominee, you can bet my father would be itching to get out on the campaign trail working to elect him even if he disagreed with him on a number of issues."


Such are the strange McCain contortions Republicans have been forcing themselves into in recent weeks. Tom DeLay used to fret that he "might have to sit this one out" if McCain won the nomination. Now he's stumping for the presumptive nominee with apparent enthusiasm. At a March 1 "Reagan Day" dinner (Republicans used to call them "Lincoln Day" dinners), Texas Senator John Cornyn likened the base's swing to McCain to the grieving process: "You come to acceptance."

But what is it that made supporting a senator who has earned an 83 lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union and votes with his party 88.3 percent of the time feel like mourning in the first place? They weren't this hard, after all, on fair-weather conservatives Bob Dole in 1996 or George H.W. Bush in 1988 and 1992, were they?

Conservatism is, among many other things, a culture. The most important glue binding it together is a shared sense of cultural grievance--the conviction, uniting conservatives high and low, theocratic and plutocratic, neocon and paleocon, that someone, somewhere is looking down their noses at them with a condescending sneer. And to conservatives, McCain has been too often one of the sneerers. It is, as much as anything else, a question of affect. As Michael Reagan wrote, "I don't like the way he treats people. You get the impression that he thinks everybody is beneath him."

They are not entirely imagining things. Birds fly, fish swim, McCain preens: it has ever been thus. His preening has turned the thin-skinned crypt-keepers of conservatism hysterical. "McCain's apostasies," Charles Krauthammer recently wrote in the Washington Post, "are too numerous to count." They aren't, really. Some conservatives still call the Republican nominee "Juan" McCain, for what Reagan calls "such blatantly anti-conservative actions as his support for amnesty for illegal immigrants." But of course Reagan's sainted father, in signing the 1986 immigration bill, was a more unapologetic and effective advocate of "amnesty" than McCain ever was--and you don't hear him getting labeled "Ronaldo" Reagan. Note, also, that other supposed bugaboo of conservative ideology: pork-barrel government spending. McCain is the Senate's leading fighter against spending earmarks. If pork was what they truly cared about, he'd be a hero. But that stance has earned him no points on the "conservative" side of the ledger.

The issues aren't the issue. George Stephanopoulos once asked Tom DeLay what it was conservatives demanded of McCain, and DeLay admitted as much: "I don't think they're demanding that he change in his position," he said. "It is attitude."

In other words: it's the ring-kissing, stupid. Consider George H.W. Bush's attitude: he all but groveled before conservatives--first calling supply-side doctrine "voodoo economics," then swallowing hard and accepting a spot as voodoo priest Reagan's running mate. Bob Dole, formerly a proud budget balancer, lay prostrate before them in accepting a 15 percent across-the-board tax cut as the cornerstone of his 1996 presidential platform, then took on movement hero Jack Kemp as his running mate.

For conservative leaders, making candidates pay them court, publicly and ostentatiously, is a colossal source of their symbolic power before their followers. It's kabuki theater, mostly. Ronald Reagan never did much to make abortion illegal. He did, however, deliver videotaped greetings, fulsome in praise for his hosts, to antiabortion rallies on the Mall. Pentecostal leaders were horrified to see George W. Bush violate what they considered biblical prophesy by giving over the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians in 2004. After they made their dismay known, Bush did not change his mind. He did, however, send top White House and National Security Council staffers to flatter them in a private meeting that concluded, according to an account one of the pastors sent to his followers, "with a heart-moving send-off of the President in his Presidential helicopter." Rings kissed, egos assuaged--and these particular Pentecostals stopped complaining about the sacrilege. The issue wasn't the issue.

For decades, the operative theory in Republican politics has been that there exists a seething mass of lockstep conservative voters controlled by leaders like these, without whose support no Republican can win a presidential election. Michael Reagan puts it this way: "If [McCain] gets the nomination the only way he could win against Hillary or Barack Obama would be to be part of a McCain-Limbaugh ticket." But that's certainly never been reflected in any actual electoral data. Indeed, this year it appears that conservative opinion leaders are more out of touch with the masses they purport to lead than ever. According to a recent CBS poll, only 17 percent of Republicans want an uncompromising conservative as their nominee. Eighty percent of Republicans are satisfied with McCain. Sixty percent of conservative primary voters say they "want a candidate who would compromise with Democrats in order to get things done."

McCain has called their bluff. He didn't suck up to Rush Limbaugh but won the nomination anyway; he's also faring well in general election matchups. He has shown that the kingmakers have no clothes. The humiliation is hard to forgive. It has made it harder for conservative leaders to do business and turned politicians like McCain (and Arnold Schwarzenegger), in their eyes, into monsters. On Glenn Beck's CNN show, for instance, Democratic consultant Peter Fenn pointed out that the reason McCain does well with voters is that "they think he is independent."

"Yes," Beck replied, "well, so is Dr. Frankenstein."

Kind of gives the game away: in their mind, these conservative leaders create Republican Presidents. But what's the point if GOP candidates are just going to go crashing around the countryside doing whatever the hell they want?

And so the professional conservatives did their best to set loose the torch-bearing mob. Late in January, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum made call after call after call spreading the word that, yes, even a President Hillary Clinton or a President Barack Obama would be better than a President McCain. At one point, according to Democratic activist Mike Lux, who overheard an indiscreet Santorum making such calls on the New York-DC Metroliner, Santorum attempted to talk an interlocutor into "coming out with a terrible story about McCain from five or six years ago." Clearly the crusade to sabotage McCain didn't work. Professional conservative Monica Crowley finally admitted the obvious: "A lot of people have actually voted for McCain, and they weren't just moderates and independents. Enough Republicans have voted for him to give him the nomination--and yes, a decent number of conservatives have too."

The frustration has been palpable. There was, for instance, the incident with radio host Bill Cunningham. Cunningham had warmed up a partisan crowd before a McCain speech in Cincinnati by barking out Obama's infamous middle name, Hussein. When McCain later "learned" about the remark, he pronounced himself shocked, shocked--and said he'd never met Cunningham in his life. Republicans have been choreographing such stylized minuets for so long now--the "grassroots conservative" gets the smears "out there," the "establishment" candidate distances himself from them, everyone emerges all the stronger--that the steps have become implicit. But Cunningham pretended to have forgotten the dance. He went on TV and complained that, of course he had met McCain several times before, and that of course McCain's handlers had told him to throw the crowd "red meat."

But everyone couldn't abandon McCain. If the Democrats won the presidency, after all, the country would see, as Human Events's Bret Winterble warned, "Obama socializing entire corporate sectors." Republicans were stuck with McCain. So what would happen next?

Conservatives started to pivot publicly in the middle of February. It may have had something to do with reports that McCain gave in to what Robert Novak identified as the negotiating terms of "elements of the Republican Party's right wing": "first, that McCain would veto any tax increase passed by a Democratic Congress; second, that he would not emulate Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush in naming liberal Supreme Court Justices such as John Paul Stevens and David Souter." It may also have something to do with McCain's bowing down before the conservative holy grail of super-harsh enforcement-first immigration reform.

Or, if my theory is correct, the conservative turnabout may have less to do with any particular policy pledges than with an ostentatious shift in apparent attitude: a show of groveling before the professional conservatives. "I've listened and learned," ran McCain's Super Tuesday radio ads announcing he'd seen the light on immigration: "No one will be rewarded for illegal behavior." Note the language. "Listening" is precisely the word the angriest professional conservatives use most when describing McCain's attitude problem. "He promises to hear, not to listen," Human Events editor Jed Babbin complained. "I am appalled by his contempt for the intelligence of his listeners," Michael Reagan moaned in his column.

We may never know how these meetings went down. Something, however, seems to have shifted in those days following CPAC. Jack Kemp, the man who was made Bob Dole's 1996 running mate as a sop to conservatives, penned an open letter to right-wing talk-radio on February 11, arguing that for conservatives to sit petulantly on their hands this fall would turn over the nation to "those who would weaken our nation's defense, wave a white flag to al-Qaida, socialize our health-care system, and promote income redistribution and class warfare instead of economic growth and equality of opportunity." He even, rather comically, compared McCain to another "well-known maverick" conservatives once foolishly turned against: Winston Churchill. "He was even banned from talk radio (aka the BBC) in those days," Kemp wrote.

Then, fortuitously, in the third week of February, just as the floodgates for McCain's redemption were opening, came an exposé of his alleged favors to an attractive blond lobbyist--from dreaded bête noire of conservatives, the New York Times. That offered the fig leaf to erstwhile McCain-haters who wished to make the pivot to party loyalty and still save face. It was no accident, they claimed, that it had been the people Jed Babbin called in another context "the hyperliberal editors of the New York Times" who had engineered the man's downfall. "The New York Times is trying to Swift Boat McCain," trumpeted one Republican strategist. "This is the first real salvo of the general election." An RNC letter sent, among other places, to the Human Events e-mail list blared, "The New York Times has proven once again that the liberal mainstream media will do whatever it takes to put Senator Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House." Mac-Lash: Times Slime Boo$ts McCain, declared the New York Post headline on a story of the fundraising blip that ensued.

To which a citizen of the reality-based community might reasonably ask: why would the editors at the Times--a paper that hired McCain's most consistent and aggressive backer in the conservative opinion firmament, Bill Kristol, as a columnist--"Swiftboat" a candidate they had endorsed for the Republican nomination?

How naïve you are. "The media picked the GOP's candidate," explained Rush Limbaugh, "and is now, with utter predictability, trying to destroy him." Shock-talker Laura Ingraham helpfully elaborated: "You wait until it's pretty much beyond a doubt that he's going to be the Republican nominee, and then you let it drop." The Times conspiracy was so immense and manifestly evil that even McCain's sworn rival, Mike Huckabee, found it in his heart to denounce it.

So the right is finally rowing more or less in the same direction, right? Not so fast. Newsmax.com on the day of CPAC, approvingly quoting Limbaugh, added to the anti-McCain thunder this way: "We are sick and tired of how the people who seem to be triumphing in our party are precisely the people who seem to be selling this party out in terms of its ideology." Four days later, McCain's nomination guaranteed, Newsmax, whose e-mail list of millions of names makes it much more influential than elite outlets like National Review or The Weekly Standard, attempted an awkward 180-degree twist. It quoted the testimony of a left-wing British writer, Johann Hari--identified as an "editorial board member of The Liberal magazine," so he must be speaking for Liberal Central Command--saying that McCain's "credentials as a 'bipartisan progressive' are in fact a 'lazy, hazy myth'.... 'The truth is that McCain is the candidate we should most fear.'"

See? The liberals hate him. So it's safe for us to like him.

But conservatism, like I say, is a business. You know you never get an e-mail from Newsmax editors without them trying to sell you something. What they were selling this time was a previous issue of their magazine with a McCain story on the cover. The piece was called "Inside McCain's Head," and it retold the far right's favorite former story about the man: that he's a Manchurian candidate whose true loyalties ultimately belong to the enemy. Newsmax hadn't even bothered to change the advertising copy now that former foe was friend: "In this eye-opening report on McCain Newsmax magazine delves into: How McCain charmed Manhattan's media elites with an exclusive fete that pundits say 'launched' his 2008 campaign for the White House.... "Why Paul Weyrich thinks McCain isn't the right man for the White House.... "McCain's 14-hour stints at the Las Vegas craps tables."

We like to think of the American right as a finely honed mechanism--a "conservative noise machine." And most times over the previous decade, the metaphor worked. But these days, the movement can no longer keep its stories straight. It reminds me of the McCain website the day after the New York Times lobbying exposé, the same day the RNC sent out its fundraising letter accusing the Times of electioneering for the Democrats. To anyone who might doubt that the good old conservative machine is overheating from the confusion and strain, here is proof that the noisemakers had clearly neglected to coordinate their anti-Times fundraising push with the McCain campaign. For there was the Times endorsement on its website that same day, bold as brass.

The gears of the contraption are jamming. Let the contortions of a Michael Reagan or a Newsmax attest to that, if nothing else. The whole machine had always been built on a series of bluffs: that once the malign hand of the liberals was removed from the executive, legislative and judicial branches, our new conservative Jerusalem would be achieved. But something remarkable occurred in the five years between 2001 and 2006: for the first time since the rise of the modern conservative movement with the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964, then the rise of Newt Gingrich's revolutionaries in 1994, the right had a chance to control all three branches of government--to actually run the country. Naught but obvious failures have been the result: a crashing economy, a rotting infrastructure, a failed war and a less safe world, more Americans saying their nation is on the wrong track than at any time since pollsters started measuring.

In the face of all this, the conservative movement has kept on trying to do the only thing it knows how to do: sell conservatism. Saner heads in the Republican Party, meanwhile, have done their darnedest to put forward a presidential prospect who might let the party distance itself, if only rhetorically, from the disaster that conservatism in power has proved to be.

But without "conservatism" as the core narrative, the Republican Party doesn't know how to tell any stories at all. Its confusion over how to talk about McCain is only the symptom. The conservative era is over--if you want it.

bkkcoh
04-14-2008, 11:02 AM
Well the biggest problem I have now with Rush and the Right is they are NOT representing American values.

The points of view that HRC and Obama are what American values are based? I don't really think so. I think both of the parties are out of touch with what is going ove in fly-over country. Aren't they?

Rush Limbaugh "Hi, please vote for John McCain! The guy I have slammed at every given opportunity for the last decade!"

So you really expect Rush to throw his support behind one of the dems?

patteeu
04-14-2008, 11:03 AM
Now hat bothers me is it is him and I guess people such as yourself that keep listening to him and thinking he is "right" about everything.

The fact is Rush and his ilk have become the mirror image of the Left.

You keep making summary statements like this but I have no idea what you mean. I get the part where you're trying to say that I'm a "mind-numbed robot" who gets his talking points from the Rush Limbaugh program and who is incapable of thinking independently, but I don't understand your last sentence. Could you elaborate a bit?

Radar Chief
04-14-2008, 11:03 AM
It's called supoprt via inference. He spends all day yapping about some Operation Chaos and slams Obama and Hilly. He is on the Right (allegedly) and so is McCain (allegedly).

So gee let's do some simple math....:eek:

Considering how wound up you are over it I’d assumed he said something specific to get wound up over. Since saying nothing in particular gets you this high strung, allow me to offer this in rebuttal…..




Rush wants McCain elected.

Well, dur. Not because he’s “Rush’s guy”, just because he’s the only republican left. Is this really new to you?

petegz28
04-14-2008, 11:04 AM
Can you elaborate? What American values are not being represented by Rush and the Right that are being addressed better by Obama and Hillary than by McCain?

Well first off do not assume. I never said Obama or Hilly or McCain were better.

But watching millions of jobs getting sent overseas and thousands laid off so the rich CEO's can make an extra $ is not American.

America is capitalist.

Right now this country is globalist with no loyalty from the corporations to the workers in this country or this country for that matter.

Rush supports crap like that all day long. I have heard it. Don't pretend he hasn't.

He is one of these millionaires now that just tells people "go find a new job, it isn't that hard".

The only thing Rush has been remotely conservative on is the border.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 11:06 AM
Considering how wound up you are over it I’d assumed he said something specific to get wound up over. Since saying nothing in particular gets you this high strung, allow me to offer this in rebuttal…..






Well, dur. Not because he’s “Rush’s guy”, just because he’s the only republican left. Is this really new to you?

Well you just put your finger on it. The entire problem. Rush and his ilk are no different than the Libs they slam everyday.

In their mind and I gues yours "the worst Repub is still better than any Dem".

HA! That's the biggest line of BS and I will not compromise my own principles because someone has a particular letter behind their name.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 11:08 AM
You keep making summary statements like this but I have no idea what you mean. I get the part where you're trying to say that I'm a "mind-numbed robot" who gets his talking points from the Rush Limbaugh program and who is incapable of thinking independently, but I don't understand your last sentence. Could you elaborate a bit?

Really simple....

The Left opposes anything the Right does simply because it came from the Right.

Now Rush and Co. are doing the same.

It's pretty easy for independant thinking individuals.

No side owns a monoploy on right and wrong. Though both parties and their talking heads, i.e. Rush, will tell you otherwise.


And yes Rush's standard defense don't wash here. He brags every show abut how "he" is talked about and this and that and the other thing, all about him.

He is a talking head for the Right. Not just a "radio talkshow host".

keg in kc
04-14-2008, 11:10 AM
Is this some kind of revelation? I thought it was common knowledge.Seriously.

Might as well start a thread titled "Raiders = suck".

petegz28
04-14-2008, 11:11 AM
The points of view that HRC and Obama are what American values are based? I don't really think so. I think both of the parties are out of touch with what is going ove in fly-over country. Aren't they?



So you really expect Rush to throw his support behind one of the dems?

No see you are viticim of what I am talking about. Why do you ahve to automatically be for one side if you aren't for the other?

Just because I don't supoprt mcCaind oesn't mean I support anyone else. This is exactly the robot mentality I am talking about.


I was where a lot of you Rush supporters are now. And I will tell you right now that the Repubs today are nothing close to conservative. And that goes for Rush as well.

mlyonsd
04-14-2008, 11:11 AM
And yes Rush's standard defense don't wash here. He brags every show abut how "he" is talked about and this and that and the other thing, all about him.



He's always done that.

The sun is the only thing known to consist of more mass than Rush's ego.

Ultra Peanut
04-14-2008, 11:12 AM
This is the elephant drills video that gets results.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 11:13 AM
Well first off do not assume. I never said Obama or Hilly or McCain were better.

But watching millions of jobs getting sent overseas and thousands laid off so the rich CEO's can make an extra $ is not American.

America is capitalist.

Right now this country is globalist with no loyalty from the corporations to the workers in this country or this country for that matter.

Rush supports crap like that all day long. I have heard it. Don't pretend he hasn't.

He is one of these millionaires now that just tells people "go find a new job, it isn't that hard".

The only thing Rush has been remotely conservative on is the border.

Oh, I see. You're one of these guys who think conservatism ought to be protectionist. No thanks.

If you haven't already started doing so, you should think about how to prepare yourself for the global economy. The national economy genie has left the building (to mix my metaphors). Don't get caught specializing in the manufacture of buggy whips.

But getting back to your original criticism of Rush, it's ironic that you'd pull this example out given that both Rush and McCain are free traders. Of all the issues that divide the two men and that could have stimulated your thoughts of hypocrisy, trade policy isn't one of them.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 11:14 AM
He's always done that.

The sun is the only thing known to consist of more mass than Rush's ego.

I agree. I am just tossing that out there before people try to give me the "he is just a talkshot host" excuse.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 11:15 AM
Oh, I see. You're one of these guys who think conservatism ought to be protectionist. No thanks.

If you haven't already started doing so, you should think about how to prepare yourself for the global economy. The national economy genie has left the building (to mix my metaphors). Don't get caught specializing in the manufacture of buggy whips.

But getting back to your original criticism of Rush, it's ironic that you'd pull this example out given that both Rush and McCain are free traders. Of all the issues that divide the two men and that could have stimulated your thoughts of hypocrisy, trade policy isn't one of them.

Where did I say "Protectionist"? See that there in and of itself shows you are clueless as to what i tmeans to be conservative.

Free Trade is great.

Free Trade at the cost of American Jobs to enrich the already-rich is not Conservative nor American. It is GREEDY!

patteeu
04-14-2008, 11:18 AM
Really simple....

The Left opposes anything the Right does simply because it came from the Right.

Now Rush and Co. are doing the same.

It's pretty easy for independant thinking individuals.

No side owns a monoploy on right and wrong. Though both parties and their talking heads, i.e. Rush, will tell you otherwise.


And yes Rush's standard defense don't wash here. He brags every show abut how "he" is talked about and this and that and the other thing, all about him.

He is a talking head for the Right. Not just a "radio talkshow host".

Since you don't offer any examples, I have to remain skeptical about your analysis. The major issue you identified in a previous post, protectionism vs. free trade, does not support your argument here. Over the past 2 decades or more, Republicans have been the driving force behind free trade with most of the protectionist sentiment coming from the democrats. To be sure there was some crossover (Buchanan's populism on the right and Bill Clinton's support for free trade on the left), but those are minority views in the respective parties.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 11:23 AM
Where did I say "Protectionist"? See that there in and of itself shows you are clueless as to what i tmeans to be conservative.

Free Trade is great.

Free Trade at the cost of American Jobs to enrich the already-rich is not Conservative nor American. It is GREEDY!

I've invited you to elaborate on your position twice. You are free to explain yourself at any time. My level of understanding is limited to that which you are willing to share. I can't be held accountable for your secret thoughts.

I'm quite interested to hear you distinguish your anti-greed approach to saving American jobs from protectionism.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 11:24 AM
Since you don't offer any examples, I have to remain skeptical about your analysis. The major issue you identified in a previous post, protectionism vs. free trade, does not support your argument here. Over the past 2 decades or more, Republicans have been the driving force behind free trade with most of the protectionist sentiment coming from the democrats. To be sure there was some crossover (Buchanan's populism on the right and Bill Clinton's support for free trade on the left), but those are minority views in the respective parties.

Ok well you take a look around you and see all the crap coming in from China without a level playing field in trade?

You look at the thousands of peopel laid off from their jobs because some CEO ran a company in the ground and made millions of $'s while doing it.

You look at the party these people seem to belong too.

You look at the people who supoprt that party.


There are examples all over the place. Have you not been paying attention for the last several years?

Our jobs are replaced by illegal immigrants or sold off to India and Brazil.
Everything manufactured that we by is made in China.

And the Repubs are leading the way on both sides.

Don't give me this crap Repub want the border tightened cause they benefit too much from the chepa labor.

The Republican Party has become the party of "say one thing and do what I slam the other side for doing".

And people like you want to sit around and play some game like "give me examples".

I thought you said you listened to Rush?
I thouhgt you said you can think for yourself?

How many times have you seen Rush call for ethics in the board room?

Maybe he did and I just couldn't hear him yelling it from Dubai?

bkkcoh
04-14-2008, 11:25 AM
No see you are viticim of what I am talking about. Why do you ahve to automatically be for one side if you aren't for the other?

So, does that mean that you aren't going to support/vote a candidate?
I am not a fan of McCain either, but I do consider him the lesser of the 3 evils.

Just because I don't supoprt mcCaind oesn't mean I support anyone else. This is exactly the robot mentality I am talking about.

So you aren't going to vote in the November election?


I was where a lot of you Rush supporters are now. And I will tell you right now that the Repubs today are nothing close to conservative. And that goes for Rush as well.

Who is it that has moved, the party or the commentator? I feel that there is a feeling of desperate need for a leader, regardless of the party and in these 3 candidates, I don't see it, especially on the democrats side. I think McCain would be more of a leader because of the fact that he is willing to lean across the aisle to work with the democrats, but I don't totally agree that should be done in all cases. In some yes, but definitely not all cases. The democrat candidates aren't and haven't really shown they are willing to lean across the aisle at all either.

The candidates will have to put aside thier parties wishes and work on what is best for the country, but that is in total debate also and therefore isn't likeley to happen. :banghead:

petegz28
04-14-2008, 11:25 AM
I've invited you to elaborate on your position twice. You are free to explain yourself at any time. My level of understanding is limited to that which you are willing to share. I can't be held accountable for your secret thoughts.

I'm quite interested to hear you distinguish your anti-greed approach to saving American jobs from protectionism.

for someone who claims to be such an independant thinker you really seem to be the exact Rush-Bot I see more and more of.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 11:27 AM
So, does that mean that you aren't going to support/vote a candidate?
I am not a fan of McCain either, but I do consider him the lesser of the 3 evils.

So you aren't going to vote in the November election?



Who is it that has moved, the party or the commentator? I feel that there is a feeling of desperate need for a leader, regardless of the party and in these 3 candidates, I don't see it, especially on the democrats side. I think McCain would be more of a leader because of the fact that he is willing to lean across the aisle to work with the democrats, but I don't totally agree that should be done in all cases. In some yes, but definitely not all cases. The democrat candidates aren't and haven't really shown they are willing to lean across the aisle at all either.

The candidates will have to put aside thier parties wishes and work on what is best for the country, but that is in total debate also and therefore isn't likeley to happen. :banghead:


I will vote. It might be a blank ticket but I am not dishonoring those who died for my Right to vote by not submitting a ballot.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 11:28 AM
Ok well you take a look around you and see all the crap coming in from China without a level playing field in trade?

You look at the thousands of peopel laid off from their jobs because some CEO ran a company in the ground and made millions of $'s while doing it.

You look at the party these people seem to belong too.

You look at the people who supoprt that party.


There are examples all over the place. Have you not been paying attention for the last several years?

Our jobs are replaced by illegal immigrants or sold off to India and Brazil.
Everything manufactured that we by is made in China.

And the Repubs are leading the way on both sides.

Don't give me this crap Repub want the border tightened cause they benefit too much from the chepa labor.

The Republican Party has become the party of "say one thing and do what I slam the other side for doing".

And people like you want to sit around and play some game like "give me examples".

I thought you said you listened to Rush?
I thouhgt you said you can think for yourself?

How many times have you seen Rush call for ethics in the board room?

Maybe he did and I just couldn't hear him yelling it from Dubai?

You sound bitter. You should cling to guns or religion or something.

What is unlevel about the playing field with China?

patteeu
04-14-2008, 11:30 AM
for someone who claims to be such an independant thinker you really seem to be the exact Rush-Bot I see more and more of.

I don't remember claiming to be an independent thinker recently, but.... Hang on a minute, the Limbaugh show is going into it's bottom of the hour break. I'll finish my thought in about 4 minutes.

In the meantime, how about you (a) distinguish your anti-greed trade ideas from protectionism and (b) you explain what's unlevel about our trading situation with China.


P.S. I have no doubt that you can come up with some trade complaints about our relationship with China, but the more important question is whether or not unilateral action to combat those inequities would be beneficial or harmful.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 11:30 AM
You sound bitter. You should cling to guns or religion or something.

What is unlevel about the playing field with China?

Gee, what is unlevel? You need to read a book.

I guess a violation of human rights, pollution, unfair tarrifs and all that is something you think is ok as long as long as it is in someone else's country and you get whatever they make cheap???

You would never tolerate being treated and paid the way the Chinese are yet you have no problem with putting thousands of Americans out of work to make a $ on all that which you oppose. ROFL

petegz28
04-14-2008, 11:35 AM
I don't remember claiming to be an independent thinker recently, but.... Hang on a minute, the Limbaugh show is going into it's bottom of the hour break. I'll finish my thought in about 4 minutes.

In the meantime, how about you (a) distinguish your anti-greed trade ideas from protectionism and (b) you explain what's unlevel about our trading situation with China.


P.S. I have no doubt that you can come up with some trade complaints about our relationship with China, but the more important question is whether or not unilateral action to combat those inequities would be beneficial or harmful.

Ah so we can go to war unilaterly says the Rushbots but not tell China where to go if they play unfair?

There is a classic example of what is wrong with the Right today.

And next time Rush complains about illegals I want you to call him and say "hey rush, it's jsut captialism and globalization".

:D

patteeu
04-14-2008, 11:41 AM
Gee, what is unlevel? You need to read a book.

I guess a violation of human rights, pollution, unfair tarrifs and all that is something you think is ok as long as long as it is in someone else's country and you get whatever they make cheap???

You would never tolerate being treated and paid the way the Chinese are yet you have no problem with putting thousands of Americans out of work to make a $ on all that which you oppose. ROFL

So what would your approach to trade with China be? How would you protect (without protectionism of course) those jobs? Remember that I'm going to evaluate your response in terms of protectionism and free trade. Also remember that we don't control labor or pollution-control policy in China and that even if we eliminated all trade with those rotten Chinese, we'd still find our domestic workers competing with the Chinese in the markets of other countries. I await your true conservative wisdom.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 11:42 AM
Ah so we can go to war unilaterly says the Rushbots but not tell China where to go if they play unfair?

There is a classic example of what is wrong with the Right today.

And next time Rush complains about illegals I want you to call him and say "hey rush, it's jsut captialism and globalization".

:D

Are you suggesting we go to war with China?

petegz28
04-14-2008, 11:45 AM
So what would your approach to trade with China be? How would you protect (without protectionism of course) those jobs? Remember that I'm going to evaluate your response in terms of protectionism and free trade. Also remember that we don't control labor or pollution-control policy in China and that even if we eliminated all trade with those rotten Chinese, we'd still find our domestic workers competing with the Chinese in the markets of other countries. I await your true conservative wisdom.

See there you go confusing being a protectionist, which you called me earlier and protectionism.

You are not qualified obviously to evaluate anything but whatever floats your boats.

We do not have to do business with China. See that is just it. It is American to tell them we will trade with them when their act gets together.

It is globalist greed that says "I don't give a shit what you do as long as it isn't to me and I make a $"

So YOU need to remember China does not control who we trade with.

But while you, Rush and other alleged conservatives supported "globalization" our country got sold out and the irony is the same people cry about illegal immigration!!!!

This is truly too easy. I feel like I am dealing with a Lib.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 11:58 AM
See there you go confusing being a protectionist, which you called me earlier and protectionism.

You are not qualified obviously to evaluate anything but whatever floats your boats.

We do not have to do business with China. See that is just it. It is American to tell them we will trade with them when their act gets together.

It is globalist greed that says "I don't give a shit what you do as long as it isn't to me and I make a $"

So YOU need to remember China does not control who we trade with.

But while you, Rush and other alleged conservatives supported "globalization" our country got sold out and the irony is the same people cry about illegal immigration!!!!

This is truly too easy. I feel like I am dealing with a Lib.

You're a funny little protectionist.

Not only is your trade policy protectionist, and not only would it be detrimental to our economy's long-term well-being, but it also runs counter to standard conservative ideology of the past 2 or 3 decades. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Limbaugh is the one being consistent here. If you ever were a free trader, it's you who has changed your views.

And wrt "globalization", it's not a matter of supporting it or not, it's a matter of recognizing it's inevitability and doing what is necessary to adapt vs. denying the reality and clinging to the old paradigm in a world that has changed.

Radar Chief
04-14-2008, 12:00 PM
Well you just put your finger on it. The entire problem. Rush and his ilk are no different than the Libs they slam everyday.

In their mind and I gues yours "the worst Repub is still better than any Dem".

Now, just a few posts ago you were saying something about “assumptions”, since we’re discussing “hypocrisy” and all.

HA! That's the biggest line of BS and I will not compromise my own principles because someone has a particular letter behind their name.

:shrug: Your entire problem with Rush seems to be the “letter behind his name”. :hmmm:

penchief
04-14-2008, 12:00 PM
Limbaugh is self-serving jerk. He cares more about his own bank account than he does the integrity of our country. JMO.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-14-2008, 12:02 PM
Look!! One is breaking loose from the pack!!

Time for us to take him back in for reeducation. He almost got away from us. Bastard needs to know the benefits of purification.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 12:03 PM
Look!! One is breaking loose from the pack!!

Time for us to take him back in for reeducation. He almost got away from us. Bastard needs to know the benefits of purification.

LMAO

petegz28
04-14-2008, 12:06 PM
You're a funny little protectionist.

Not only is your trade policy protectionist, and not only would it be detrimental to our economy's long-term well-being, but it also runs counter to standard conservative ideology of the past 2 or 3 decades. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Limbaugh is the one being consistent here. If you ever were a free trader, it's you who has changed your views.

And wrt "globalization", it's not a matter of supporting it or not, it's a matter of recognizing it's inevitability and doing what is necessary to adapt or denying the reality and clinging to the old paradigm in a world that has changed. Unless you are Amish, I don't recommend the latter.



Ok I guess you really do need pictures but I am not an artist. I guess then you have no problems with Illegal immigrants taking jobs? After all the people who are hiring them are just being capitalist. Methinks you need a dictionary.

It is not Protectionist to tell China to screw off if they are treating their people like crap. We invaded a country allegedly to free people from the rule of an evil dictator, remember?

Then again as with most alleged Cons you have no problem telling someone else to go work elsewhere cause their $20 hr job was just handed to a Chinaman makin $3 hr.

Yes I know, our economy would suffer if we had to pay people a little more and the already rich guy had to be not quite so rich. Must be some of that Conservative Christian value system that says it's ok to treat people like shit as long as it puts a $ in your pocket.

But heaven forbid someone should ever treat you like that.


You have been great. You have summed up the hypocracy I was talking about better than I ever could.

.05 worth of free advice for you...."Slavery is the ultimate form of Capitalism". But unfoturnatly all you seem to care about is a low price item at Wal-Mart.

But I bet you don't want those illegals over here taking jobs and undercutting Americans do you? See, you are all for all this crap until it effects you then it is not such a hot deal is it?

Do yourself a favor and get out more and listen to Rush less.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 12:10 PM
Now, just a few posts ago you were saying something about “assumptions”, since we’re discussing “hypocrisy” and all.



:shrug: Your entire problem with Rush seems to be the “letter behind his name”. :hmmm:

You are almost half right!

My problem with Rush is the same I have with the Libs. Everything is a bad idea until it is on your side.

HonestChieffan
04-14-2008, 12:15 PM
See Pete. See Pete flip out.

Radar Chief
04-14-2008, 12:16 PM
You are almost half right!

My problem with Rush is the same I have with the Libs. Everything is a bad idea until it is on your side.

Maybe you could then quote where Rush claimed McCain was a “good idea”? Or anything similar?
He hasn’t. About the best he’s said of McCain is he isn’t Hillary or Obama. :shrug:

Radar Chief
04-14-2008, 12:17 PM
About the best he’s said of McCain is he isn’t Hillary or Obama. :shrug:

I will admit that some seem to differ on that opinion though. ;)

HonestChieffan
04-14-2008, 12:20 PM
Well the biggest problem I have now with Rush and the Right is they are NOT representing American values.

What ones?

petegz28
04-14-2008, 12:20 PM
Maybe you could then quote where Rush claimed McCain was a “good idea”? Or anything similar?
He hasn’t. About the best he’s said of McCain is he isn’t Hillary or Obama. :shrug:

Well let's see I thought we went over this once.....Rush has Operation Chaos designed to screw up Hilly and Obama so who is left then? McCain maybe?

It all comes down too Rush is one of these "anyone but a democrat" type people. Just like the Left was "anyone but Bush".

It's idiotic thinking and Rush would be better served if he just flat out said they all sucked and ecouraged people to vote blank tickets.

Instead being a strong and true Conservative he will "settle" for a Lib dressed in Con clothes.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 12:22 PM
What ones?

Like the lack of loyalty fromt he boardroom to the worker?

Gee let's just sit back while a few rich guys make some deals that make them more rich while they layoff 10's of 1,000's of people doing it?

That is capitalist yes. That is not American.

Or how about the crying about illegal immigrants taking American jobs for pennies on the $? Seems to be ok to put Americans out of work to give a job the Chinaman so why not the Mexicano?

HonestChieffan
04-14-2008, 12:29 PM
no Pete...what values does Rush not represent that are American

petegz28
04-14-2008, 12:36 PM
no Pete...what values does Rush not represent that are American

Supporting those that do what I just said. Do not start playing this "dumb act". If you listen to Rush then you know he has never had problems with jobs going offshore. He has been one of the leading people perpetuating this conspiracy that oil refineries are maxed and we have no refining capacity. I mean need I go on?

Supporting the offshoring of jobs to countries that have sub-par standards for particular things in the name of capitalism is not American and Rush does this day in and out. Let's not pretend he doesn't ok? I am not a Rush rookie. I listened to the man everyday for years until the bullshit got too deep.

But Rush will be the first to whine about illegals taking jobs, driving up costs, etc, etc. Somehow I guess in the Limbaugh-esque mind it is justifiable to make money off of slave labor as long as it is not in your country.

See there really is no difference in impacts between the illegal mexican taking your job and the Chinaman taking your job. Either way Americans are out of work. Only it's "globalization" when it benefits you.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 01:13 PM
Ok I guess you really do need pictures but I am not an artist. I guess then you have no problems with Illegal immigrants taking jobs? After all the people who are hiring them are just being capitalist. Methinks you need a dictionary.

It is not Protectionist to tell China to screw off if they are treating their people like crap. We invaded a country allegedly to free people from the rule of an evil dictator, remember?

Then again as with most alleged Cons you have no problem telling someone else to go work elsewhere cause their $20 hr job was just handed to a Chinaman makin $3 hr.

Yes I know, our economy would suffer if we had to pay people a little more and the already rich guy had to be not quite so rich. Must be some of that Conservative Christian value system that says it's ok to treat people like shit as long as it puts a $ in your pocket.

But heaven forbid someone should ever treat you like that.


You have been great. You have summed up the hypocracy I was talking about better than I ever could.

.05 worth of free advice for you...."Slavery is the ultimate form of Capitalism". But unfoturnatly all you seem to care about is a low price item at Wal-Mart.

But I bet you don't want those illegals over here taking jobs and undercutting Americans do you? See, you are all for all this crap until it effects you then it is not such a hot deal is it?

Do yourself a favor and get out more and listen to Rush less.

You jump all over the place. Let's recap:

1. You started off the thread being critical of Rush's supposedly hypocritical support of the McCain candidacy.

2. When confronted with the fact that Rush doesn't actually support McCain, it appeared to make no difference to you.

3. When asked for an example of a way in which Rush was compromising his principles, you provided a protectionist's critique of free trade as it's been practiced to date. You didn't let the fact that Rush's view on trade hasn't changed significantly in 20 years get in your way.

4. In criticizing our trade policy, you focused in on China. You complained about an unlevel playing field and about cheap Chinese products causing Americans to lose jobs.

5. I asked you what you'd do about it and you said you want to stop trading with China. I presumed that you wanted to stop trading for the reasons implied by my question so I pointed out that that is a "protectionist" act. But now you say it's not protectionist if we're doing it for the sake of the poor, exploited Chinese worker or some other humanitarian reason. That's funny.

6. And now, as you sense that you're running out of subject-change ideas, you're simply declaring victory. Outstanding!

Radar Chief
04-14-2008, 01:20 PM
Well let's see I thought we went over this once.....Rush has Operation Chaos designed to screw up Hilly and Obama so who is left then? McCain maybe?

:shrug: Dems helped select McCain, according to Rush's reasoning. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

penchief
04-14-2008, 01:31 PM
Rush Limbaugh may be the biggest detriment to civil society that exists in the latter twentieth/early twenty-first century.

Seriously, he's a real self-serving bought-and-paid-for establishment jack-off.

bkkcoh
04-14-2008, 02:19 PM
Rush Limbaugh may be the biggest detriment to civil society that exists in the latter twentieth/early twenty-first century.

Seriously, he's a real self-serving bought-and-paid-for establishment jack-off.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

I am sure that there is absolutely nothing that you could agree with him on, or at least wouldn't admit to it.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 02:23 PM
You jump all over the place. Let's recap:

1. You started off the thread being critical of Rush's supposedly hypocritical support of the McCain candidacy.

2. When confronted with the fact that Rush doesn't actually support McCain, it appeared to make no difference to you.

3. When asked for an example of a way in which Rush was compromising his principles, you provided a protectionist's critique of free trade as it's been practiced to date. You didn't let the fact that Rush's view on trade hasn't changed significantly in 20 years get in your way.

4. In criticizing our trade policy, you focused in on China. You complained about an unlevel playing field and about cheap Chinese products causing Americans to lose jobs.

5. I asked you what you'd do about it and you said you want to stop trading with China. I presumed that you wanted to stop trading for the reasons implied by my question so I pointed out that that is a "protectionist" act. But now you say it's not protectionist if we're doing it for the sake of the poor, exploited Chinese worker or some other humanitarian reason. That's funny.

6. And now, as you sense that you're running out of subject-change ideas, you're simply declaring victory. Outstanding!

Well hoping the other 2 don't win and leaving only McCain standing seems to be him supporting a McCain victory, Nice try on your spin though.

Protectionist and Protectionism are two concepts you obviously struggle with.


And I never said don't trade with China did I? In fact I never said what I would do so once again you make quite the display of yourself.

But since you asked I would level the playing field or not trade with them. I would make it not so easy to ship jobs from our country to someone else's. But we don't cause you "alleged" Conservatives have no problem selling out our country.


Next you will be telling me you are a citizen of the world!!! LOL

petegz28
04-14-2008, 02:24 PM
Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

I am sure that there is absolutely nothing that you could agree with him on, or at least wouldn't admit to it.

And I am sure you don't have a clue of what you are talking about.

I love how people who claim to be "con" get the minute you attack their hero Rush.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 02:25 PM
Rush Limbaugh may be the biggest detriment to civil society that exists in the latter twentieth/early twenty-first century.

Seriously, he's a real self-serving bought-and-paid-for establishment jack-off.

There was a day I would of considered them to be fighting words.

Then I woke up! :D

penchief
04-14-2008, 02:34 PM
Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

I am sure that there is absolutely nothing that you could agree with him on, or at least wouldn't admit to it.

Why should there be? He's a complete and total sellout.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 02:38 PM
Why should there be? He's a complete and total sellout.

And he proved that throught the Bush Administration. Sure he whined about the Pharma plan but not really.

Now Michael Savage, there is a guy who didn't cut Bush or this group of Repubs any breaks.

I could turn on Rush and Hannity and hear them supporting the very thing Savage is slamming. Not that I am a huge Savage fan but he definitely helped draw a contrast.

bkkcoh
04-14-2008, 02:50 PM
Why should there be? He's a complete and total sellout.


I can admit that there are things that Obama and even Hillary are saying, the problem is the method in which they want to accomplish thier goals and desires.

I think it would be arrogant and ignorant to say that you don't agree at all with anything person x says, regardless of who person x is.

Having that attitude, there isn't anyway for compromise at all.

:banghead:

patteeu
04-14-2008, 03:04 PM
Well hoping the other 2 don't win and leaving only McCain standing seems to be him supporting a McCain victory, Nice try on your spin though.

Protectionist and Protectionism are two concepts you obviously struggle with.

And I never said don't trade with China did I? In fact I never said what I would do so once again you make quite the display of yourself.

But since you asked I would level the playing field or not trade with them. I would make it not so easy to ship jobs from our country to someone else's. But we don't cause you "alleged" Conservatives have no problem selling out our country.

LMAO So after making quite a display of yourself, you turn around and say I was right in the first place. Ha.

You and I have very little in common on trade policy and unless you've had a dramatic conversion at some point along he way, we never have. I'm OK with that except that it doesn't really explain your passionate disapproval of Rush Limbaugh since he's always favored free trade over the kind of protective measures that you favor (such as your threat to cut off trade to China).

petegz28
04-14-2008, 03:39 PM
LMAO So after making quite a display of yourself, you turn around and say I was right in the first place. Ha.

You and I have very little in common on trade policy and unless you've had a dramatic conversion at some point along he way, we never have. I'm OK with that except that it doesn't really explain your passionate disapproval of Rush Limbaugh since he's always favored free trade over the kind of protective measures that you favor (such as your threat to cut off trade to China).


Seriously, does reading comprehension not jive well with you?


Saying have a fair trading field or we won't trade is not proectionist. It's fair. DUH!

Trading with people who stiff us on our end and get all or most of the benefit is called selling out. That would be "globalization" for you in Rushland and Rio Linde.

You would of been a classic slave owner. Why pay someone a decent and fair wage when you can slave them out. Or in this case employee Chinese\North Korea sweatshops.


Again the hypocracy of the "alleged" conservative.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 03:41 PM
I can admit that there are things that Obama and even Hillary are saying, the problem is the method in which they want to accomplish thier goals and desires.

I think it would be arrogant and ignorant to say that you don't agree at all with anything person x says, regardless of who person x is.

Having that attitude, there isn't anyway for compromise at all.

:banghead:


I agree and that is what has soiled me with the Right. The Left used to play that game and it seems now they all do. I never stopped being conservative, our Republican Congress did.

And Rush, Hannity, Coulter ...and all save Savage led the way.

Savge on the other hand is just too radical for a talk show but his views are usually spot on.


Except the Christian stuff. I have had it with organized religeon as well.

JohnnyV13
04-14-2008, 03:51 PM
Ok well you take a look around you and see all the crap coming in from China without a level playing field in trade?

You look at the thousands of peopel laid off from their jobs because some CEO ran a company in the ground and made millions of $'s while doing it.

You look at the party these people seem to belong too.

You look at the people who supoprt that party.

There are examples all over the place. Have you not been paying attention for the last several years?

Our jobs are replaced by illegal immigrants or sold off to India and Brazil.
Everything manufactured that we by is made in China.

And the Repubs are leading the way on both sides.

Don't give me this crap Repub want the border tightened cause they benefit too much from the chepa labor.

The Republican Party has become the party of "say one thing and do what I slam the other side for doing".

And people like you want to sit around and play some game like "give me examples".

I thought you said you listened to Rush?
I thouhgt you said you can think for yourself?

How many times have you seen Rush call for ethics in the board room?

Maybe he did and I just couldn't hear him yelling it from Dubai?

I want to ask you, were you crying when the "thousands" getting laid off from jobs during the 90's were white collar workers? Funny how no one cared about them. Of course, those lost jobs did create a struggling job market for quite a while. Then, suddenly, the economy took off with an unprecidented period of growth. All of this was driven by industry learning how to use the micro-computer efficiently. This pattern is actually typical of a quantum leap in business technology: early on worker effiency goes DOWN b/c businesses struggle to figure out how to implement the new tech. (for about 10 years), then you have a period of layoffs as employers pare down their workforces. Then the economy goes into a growth spurt driven by worker efficiency gains.

Right now, we are experiencing something similar, but the "down" period has been exasperated by the housing financial crisis. THe "quantum" leap in business techology is the internet, and companies are now paring down workforces due to better information management added to the double whammy of tapping cheap labor in Asia. Eventually, we will see an expansion driven by the gains in worker efficiency. Capital will flow into those now "lean and mean" companies and they will expand their operations, creating more local labor jobs (any US based company will have local labor needs because you can't outsource physical labor that must be performed on site.).

If we do NOT utilize this techology, foreign corporations will do so and the capital will flow there instead of here. That would be the worst consequence, because we will have some job loss due to the tech (and competitive disadvantages vs. foreign corps), but then won't get the capital influx that will replace the jobs lost during the cutbacks.

Ultimately, there's only so much you can do to protect your labor markets once the tech genie gets out of the bottle. If you don't exploit that tech, you end off worse.

Finally, one sad truth of technology is it tends to focus wealth into the hands of fewer people. This trend actually makes intuitive sense, when you realize that technology tends to expand the reach of the "alpha competitors". Consider, for example, what mass market communications has done to the job of "storyteller" Back in tribal days, there probably were more "storyteller" jobs available (relative to the population) b/c each person could not broadcast their tale beyond the reach of their voice. Then writing was invented, so skilled storytellers could exercise their advantage through books. Then came publishing. Then televisions, radio, and computer information management. All of these things tend to give the more skilled storytellers more access to the market (and, consequently, drive out more and more people).

This trend isn't precise, since market shifts and some tech can create counter-currents that increase jobs (such as cable expanding the market for television jobs). Yet, I think the overall trend is clear, technology allows stronger competitors access into more markets, and focuses money into fewer hands. I'm not really sure how you stop it.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 04:15 PM
I want to ask you, were you crying when the "thousands" getting laid off from jobs during the 90's were white collar workers? Funny how no one cared about them. Of course, those lost jobs did create a struggling job market for quite a while. Then, suddenly, the economy took off with an unprecidented period of growth. All of this was driven by industry learning how to use the micro-computer efficiently. This pattern is actually typical of a quantum leap in business technology: early on worker effiency goes DOWN b/c businesses struggle to figure out how to implement the new tech. (for about 10 years), then you have a period of layoffs as employers pare down their workforces. Then the economy goes into a growth spurt driven by worker efficiency gains.

Right now, we are experiencing something similar, but the "down" period has been exasperated by the housing financial crisis. THe "quantum" leap in business techology is the internet, and companies are now paring down workforces due to better information management added to the double whammy of tapping cheap labor in Asia. Eventually, we will see an expansion driven by the gains in worker efficiency. Capital will flow into those now "lean and mean" companies and they will expand their operations, creating more local labor jobs (any US based company will have local labor needs because you can't outsource physical labor that must be performed on site.).

If we do NOT utilize this techology, foreign corporations will do so and the capital will flow there instead of here. That would be the worst consequence, because we will have some job loss due to the tech (and competitive disadvantages vs. foreign corps), but then won't get the capital influx that will replace the jobs lost during the cutbacks.

Ultimately, there's only so much you can do to protect your labor markets once the tech genie gets out of the bottle. If you don't exploit that tech, you end off worse.

Finally, one sad truth of technology is it tends to focus wealth into the hands of fewer people. This trend actually makes intuitive sense, when you realize that technology tends to expand the reach of the "alpha competitors". Consider, for example, what mass market communications has done to the job of "storyteller" Back in tribal days, there probably were more "storyteller" jobs available (relative to the population) b/c each person could not broadcast their tale beyond the reach of their voice. Then writing was invented, so skilled storytellers could exercise their advantage through books. Then came publishing. Then televisions, radio, and computer information management. All of these things tend to give the more skilled storytellers more access to the market (and, consequently, drive out more and more people).

This trend isn't precise, since market shifts and some tech can create counter-currents that increase jobs (such as cable expanding the market for television jobs). Yet, I think the overall trend is clear, technology allows stronger competitors access into more markets, and focuses money into fewer hands. I'm not really sure how you stop it.

The 90's? The early 90's were no where near this bad. The rest of the 90's I don't think had job issues. What did I miss?

Calcountry
04-14-2008, 04:20 PM
Well the biggest problem I have now with Rush and the Right is they are NOT representing Amerikan values.I fixed your post.

Guru
04-14-2008, 04:20 PM
God I hate election years. I just love everyone slamming everyone over all the crap.

Calcountry
04-14-2008, 04:22 PM
All Aboard the McCain Express
Rick Perlstein

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/perlstein

Back when the Republican presidential race was still competitive, the insults against John McCain from leading conservative voices were so extravagant they almost constituted a new literary genre. Rush Limbaugh said McCain threatened "the American way of life as we've always known it." McCain's Senate colleague Thad Cochran said, "The thought of him as President sends a cold chill down my spine." Ann Coulter charged the most unforgivable sin of all: McCain was, in fact, "a Democrat." Coulter's employer, Fox News, seconded the smear on February 7 by printing the words "John McCain (D-AZ)" under footage of the Arizona Republican.

That day was no ordinary one in the history of McCain-hate. On that afternoon, most of these figures' preferred candidate, Mitt Romney, announced at CPAC, the big annual conservative conference in Washington, that he was dropping out of the race. McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee, was booed. The next morning the conservative magazine Human Events sent out a weekly roundup of its top ten stories to its e-mail list. Eight were anti-McCain jeremiads. One called the McCain ascendancy "the new Axis of Evil." Michael Reagan's article "John McCain Hates Me" posited a "huge gap that separates McCain--whose contempt for his fellow humans is patently obvious--and my dad, Ronald Reagan," and concluded, "He has contempt for conservatives who he thinks can be duped into thinking he's one of them."

Michael Reagan, for one, would not be duped. He would not defile his father's sacred memory. At least for a week. Eight days later Reagan's article for Human Events argued, "Assuming that John McCain will be the Republican nominee, you can bet my father would be itching to get out on the campaign trail working to elect him even if he disagreed with him on a number of issues."


Such are the strange McCain contortions Republicans have been forcing themselves into in recent weeks. Tom DeLay used to fret that he "might have to sit this one out" if McCain won the nomination. Now he's stumping for the presumptive nominee with apparent enthusiasm. At a March 1 "Reagan Day" dinner (Republicans used to call them "Lincoln Day" dinners), Texas Senator John Cornyn likened the base's swing to McCain to the grieving process: "You come to acceptance."

But what is it that made supporting a senator who has earned an 83 lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union and votes with his party 88.3 percent of the time feel like mourning in the first place? They weren't this hard, after all, on fair-weather conservatives Bob Dole in 1996 or George H.W. Bush in 1988 and 1992, were they?

Conservatism is, among many other things, a culture. The most important glue binding it together is a shared sense of cultural grievance--the conviction, uniting conservatives high and low, theocratic and plutocratic, neocon and paleocon, that someone, somewhere is looking down their noses at them with a condescending sneer. And to conservatives, McCain has been too often one of the sneerers. It is, as much as anything else, a question of affect. As Michael Reagan wrote, "I don't like the way he treats people. You get the impression that he thinks everybody is beneath him."

They are not entirely imagining things. Birds fly, fish swim, McCain preens: it has ever been thus. His preening has turned the thin-skinned crypt-keepers of conservatism hysterical. "McCain's apostasies," Charles Krauthammer recently wrote in the Washington Post, "are too numerous to count." They aren't, really. Some conservatives still call the Republican nominee "Juan" McCain, for what Reagan calls "such blatantly anti-conservative actions as his support for amnesty for illegal immigrants." But of course Reagan's sainted father, in signing the 1986 immigration bill, was a more unapologetic and effective advocate of "amnesty" than McCain ever was--and you don't hear him getting labeled "Ronaldo" Reagan. Note, also, that other supposed bugaboo of conservative ideology: pork-barrel government spending. McCain is the Senate's leading fighter against spending earmarks. If pork was what they truly cared about, he'd be a hero. But that stance has earned him no points on the "conservative" side of the ledger.

The issues aren't the issue. George Stephanopoulos once asked Tom DeLay what it was conservatives demanded of McCain, and DeLay admitted as much: "I don't think they're demanding that he change in his position," he said. "It is attitude."

In other words: it's the ring-kissing, stupid. Consider George H.W. Bush's attitude: he all but groveled before conservatives--first calling supply-side doctrine "voodoo economics," then swallowing hard and accepting a spot as voodoo priest Reagan's running mate. Bob Dole, formerly a proud budget balancer, lay prostrate before them in accepting a 15 percent across-the-board tax cut as the cornerstone of his 1996 presidential platform, then took on movement hero Jack Kemp as his running mate.

For conservative leaders, making candidates pay them court, publicly and ostentatiously, is a colossal source of their symbolic power before their followers. It's kabuki theater, mostly. Ronald Reagan never did much to make abortion illegal. He did, however, deliver videotaped greetings, fulsome in praise for his hosts, to antiabortion rallies on the Mall. Pentecostal leaders were horrified to see George W. Bush violate what they considered biblical prophesy by giving over the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians in 2004. After they made their dismay known, Bush did not change his mind. He did, however, send top White House and National Security Council staffers to flatter them in a private meeting that concluded, according to an account one of the pastors sent to his followers, "with a heart-moving send-off of the President in his Presidential helicopter." Rings kissed, egos assuaged--and these particular Pentecostals stopped complaining about the sacrilege. The issue wasn't the issue.

For decades, the operative theory in Republican politics has been that there exists a seething mass of lockstep conservative voters controlled by leaders like these, without whose support no Republican can win a presidential election. Michael Reagan puts it this way: "If [McCain] gets the nomination the only way he could win against Hillary or Barack Obama would be to be part of a McCain-Limbaugh ticket." But that's certainly never been reflected in any actual electoral data. Indeed, this year it appears that conservative opinion leaders are more out of touch with the masses they purport to lead than ever. According to a recent CBS poll, only 17 percent of Republicans want an uncompromising conservative as their nominee. Eighty percent of Republicans are satisfied with McCain. Sixty percent of conservative primary voters say they "want a candidate who would compromise with Democrats in order to get things done."

McCain has called their bluff. He didn't suck up to Rush Limbaugh but won the nomination anyway; he's also faring well in general election matchups. He has shown that the kingmakers have no clothes. The humiliation is hard to forgive. It has made it harder for conservative leaders to do business and turned politicians like McCain (and Arnold Schwarzenegger), in their eyes, into monsters. On Glenn Beck's CNN show, for instance, Democratic consultant Peter Fenn pointed out that the reason McCain does well with voters is that "they think he is independent."

"Yes," Beck replied, "well, so is Dr. Frankenstein."

Kind of gives the game away: in their mind, these conservative leaders create Republican Presidents. But what's the point if GOP candidates are just going to go crashing around the countryside doing whatever the hell they want?

And so the professional conservatives did their best to set loose the torch-bearing mob. Late in January, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum made call after call after call spreading the word that, yes, even a President Hillary Clinton or a President Barack Obama would be better than a President McCain. At one point, according to Democratic activist Mike Lux, who overheard an indiscreet Santorum making such calls on the New York-DC Metroliner, Santorum attempted to talk an interlocutor into "coming out with a terrible story about McCain from five or six years ago." Clearly the crusade to sabotage McCain didn't work. Professional conservative Monica Crowley finally admitted the obvious: "A lot of people have actually voted for McCain, and they weren't just moderates and independents. Enough Republicans have voted for him to give him the nomination--and yes, a decent number of conservatives have too."

The frustration has been palpable. There was, for instance, the incident with radio host Bill Cunningham. Cunningham had warmed up a partisan crowd before a McCain speech in Cincinnati by barking out Obama's infamous middle name, Hussein. When McCain later "learned" about the remark, he pronounced himself shocked, shocked--and said he'd never met Cunningham in his life. Republicans have been choreographing such stylized minuets for so long now--the "grassroots conservative" gets the smears "out there," the "establishment" candidate distances himself from them, everyone emerges all the stronger--that the steps have become implicit. But Cunningham pretended to have forgotten the dance. He went on TV and complained that, of course he had met McCain several times before, and that of course McCain's handlers had told him to throw the crowd "red meat."

But everyone couldn't abandon McCain. If the Democrats won the presidency, after all, the country would see, as Human Events's Bret Winterble warned, "Obama socializing entire corporate sectors." Republicans were stuck with McCain. So what would happen next?

Conservatives started to pivot publicly in the middle of February. It may have had something to do with reports that McCain gave in to what Robert Novak identified as the negotiating terms of "elements of the Republican Party's right wing": "first, that McCain would veto any tax increase passed by a Democratic Congress; second, that he would not emulate Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush in naming liberal Supreme Court Justices such as John Paul Stevens and David Souter." It may also have something to do with McCain's bowing down before the conservative holy grail of super-harsh enforcement-first immigration reform.

Or, if my theory is correct, the conservative turnabout may have less to do with any particular policy pledges than with an ostentatious shift in apparent attitude: a show of groveling before the professional conservatives. "I've listened and learned," ran McCain's Super Tuesday radio ads announcing he'd seen the light on immigration: "No one will be rewarded for illegal behavior." Note the language. "Listening" is precisely the word the angriest professional conservatives use most when describing McCain's attitude problem. "He promises to hear, not to listen," Human Events editor Jed Babbin complained. "I am appalled by his contempt for the intelligence of his listeners," Michael Reagan moaned in his column.

We may never know how these meetings went down. Something, however, seems to have shifted in those days following CPAC. Jack Kemp, the man who was made Bob Dole's 1996 running mate as a sop to conservatives, penned an open letter to right-wing talk-radio on February 11, arguing that for conservatives to sit petulantly on their hands this fall would turn over the nation to "those who would weaken our nation's defense, wave a white flag to al-Qaida, socialize our health-care system, and promote income redistribution and class warfare instead of economic growth and equality of opportunity." He even, rather comically, compared McCain to another "well-known maverick" conservatives once foolishly turned against: Winston Churchill. "He was even banned from talk radio (aka the BBC) in those days," Kemp wrote.

Then, fortuitously, in the third week of February, just as the floodgates for McCain's redemption were opening, came an exposé of his alleged favors to an attractive blond lobbyist--from dreaded bête noire of conservatives, the New York Times. That offered the fig leaf to erstwhile McCain-haters who wished to make the pivot to party loyalty and still save face. It was no accident, they claimed, that it had been the people Jed Babbin called in another context "the hyperliberal editors of the New York Times" who had engineered the man's downfall. "The New York Times is trying to Swift Boat McCain," trumpeted one Republican strategist. "This is the first real salvo of the general election." An RNC letter sent, among other places, to the Human Events e-mail list blared, "The New York Times has proven once again that the liberal mainstream media will do whatever it takes to put Senator Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House." Mac-Lash: Times Slime Boo$ts McCain, declared the New York Post headline on a story of the fundraising blip that ensued.

To which a citizen of the reality-based community might reasonably ask: why would the editors at the Times--a paper that hired McCain's most consistent and aggressive backer in the conservative opinion firmament, Bill Kristol, as a columnist--"Swiftboat" a candidate they had endorsed for the Republican nomination?

How naïve you are. "The media picked the GOP's candidate," explained Rush Limbaugh, "and is now, with utter predictability, trying to destroy him." Shock-talker Laura Ingraham helpfully elaborated: "You wait until it's pretty much beyond a doubt that he's going to be the Republican nominee, and then you let it drop." The Times conspiracy was so immense and manifestly evil that even McCain's sworn rival, Mike Huckabee, found it in his heart to denounce it.

So the right is finally rowing more or less in the same direction, right? Not so fast. Newsmax.com on the day of CPAC, approvingly quoting Limbaugh, added to the anti-McCain thunder this way: "We are sick and tired of how the people who seem to be triumphing in our party are precisely the people who seem to be selling this party out in terms of its ideology." Four days later, McCain's nomination guaranteed, Newsmax, whose e-mail list of millions of names makes it much more influential than elite outlets like National Review or The Weekly Standard, attempted an awkward 180-degree twist. It quoted the testimony of a left-wing British writer, Johann Hari--identified as an "editorial board member of The Liberal magazine," so he must be speaking for Liberal Central Command--saying that McCain's "credentials as a 'bipartisan progressive' are in fact a 'lazy, hazy myth'.... 'The truth is that McCain is the candidate we should most fear.'"

See? The liberals hate him. So it's safe for us to like him.

But conservatism, like I say, is a business. You know you never get an e-mail from Newsmax editors without them trying to sell you something. What they were selling this time was a previous issue of their magazine with a McCain story on the cover. The piece was called "Inside McCain's Head," and it retold the far right's favorite former story about the man: that he's a Manchurian candidate whose true loyalties ultimately belong to the enemy. Newsmax hadn't even bothered to change the advertising copy now that former foe was friend: "In this eye-opening report on McCain Newsmax magazine delves into: How McCain charmed Manhattan's media elites with an exclusive fete that pundits say 'launched' his 2008 campaign for the White House.... "Why Paul Weyrich thinks McCain isn't the right man for the White House.... "McCain's 14-hour stints at the Las Vegas craps tables."

We like to think of the American right as a finely honed mechanism--a "conservative noise machine." And most times over the previous decade, the metaphor worked. But these days, the movement can no longer keep its stories straight. It reminds me of the McCain website the day after the New York Times lobbying exposé, the same day the RNC sent out its fundraising letter accusing the Times of electioneering for the Democrats. To anyone who might doubt that the good old conservative machine is overheating from the confusion and strain, here is proof that the noisemakers had clearly neglected to coordinate their anti-Times fundraising push with the McCain campaign. For there was the Times endorsement on its website that same day, bold as brass.

The gears of the contraption are jamming. Let the contortions of a Michael Reagan or a Newsmax attest to that, if nothing else. The whole machine had always been built on a series of bluffs: that once the malign hand of the liberals was removed from the executive, legislative and judicial branches, our new conservative Jerusalem would be achieved. But something remarkable occurred in the five years between 2001 and 2006: for the first time since the rise of the modern conservative movement with the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964, then the rise of Newt Gingrich's revolutionaries in 1994, the right had a chance to control all three branches of government--to actually run the country. Naught but obvious failures have been the result: a crashing economy, a rotting infrastructure, a failed war and a less safe world, more Americans saying their nation is on the wrong track than at any time since pollsters started measuring.

In the face of all this, the conservative movement has kept on trying to do the only thing it knows how to do: sell conservatism. Saner heads in the Republican Party, meanwhile, have done their darnedest to put forward a presidential prospect who might let the party distance itself, if only rhetorically, from the disaster that conservatism in power has proved to be.

But without "conservatism" as the core narrative, the Republican Party doesn't know how to tell any stories at all. Its confusion over how to talk about McCain is only the symptom. The conservative era is over--if you want it.

Great, bring on the US OF KKKA.

banyon
04-14-2008, 04:52 PM
Great, bring on the US OF KKKA.

great observation. :spock:

petegz28
04-14-2008, 05:01 PM
great observation. :spock:

See how the Rush-bots get when you don't repeat his mantra verbatim?

I agree with Rush on a lot of things. But I am afraid he has been, though it took me a while to see it, a company man.

alanm
04-14-2008, 05:11 PM
Now hat bothers me is it is him and I guess people such as yourself that keep listening to him and thinking he is "right" about everything.

The fact is Rush and his ilk have become the mirror image of the Left.
Only difference being that Rush and EIB make money.

Guru
04-14-2008, 05:12 PM
See how the Rush-bots get when you don't repeat his mantra verbatim?

I agree with Rush on a lot of things. But I am afraid he has been, though it took me a while to see it, a company man.

So anyone who listens to Rush is a Rush-bot now? So, you are saying that anyone who listens to Rush cannot think for themselves? Thats rich.:shake:

petegz28
04-14-2008, 06:02 PM
So anyone who listens to Rush is a Rush-bot now? So, you are saying that anyone who listens to Rush cannot think for themselves? Thats rich.:shake:



Nice freuidian slip. I never said that. But I am glad to see your conscience getting the best of you.

Guru
04-14-2008, 06:08 PM
Nice freuidian slip. I never said that. But I am glad to see your conscience getting the best of you.

This is why I am growing to really hate this board. Nobody is allowed to have an opinion. Somebody asks a question and you turn it into a backhanded insult. What did I do to insult you? Nothing.

Taco John
04-14-2008, 08:26 PM
This is why I am growing to really hate this board. Nobody is allowed to have an opinion. Somebody asks a question and you turn it into a backhanded insult. What did I do to insult you? Nothing.

You joined Chiefs Planet in 2002. This is nothing new.

Logical
04-14-2008, 08:30 PM
This is why I am growing to really hate this board. Nobody is allowed to have an opinion. Somebody asks a question and you turn it into a backhanded insult. What did I do to insult you? Nothing.The only thing worse than the I am leaving threads is the this is why I hate thie BB posts. If you hate the BB or a poster use iggy, heck I think you can even set it up so you don't see certain forums. If all else fails you can delete the link to ChiefsPlanet.

Guru
04-14-2008, 08:32 PM
The only thing worse than the I am leaving threads is the this is why I hate thie BB posts. If you hate the BB or a poster use iggy, heck I think you can even set it up so you don't see certain forums. If all else fails you can delete the link to ChiefsPlanet.

As I said. Have an opinion? Keep it to yourself. Typical of ya there Ill.

Guru
04-14-2008, 08:33 PM
You joined Chiefs Planet in 2002. This is nothing new.

Fairly new to DC though.

Logical
04-14-2008, 08:35 PM
As I said. Have an opinion? Keep it to yourself. Typical of ya there Ill.OK, you want to discuss it. Fine I will discuss it with you. But only you can do something to fix it, this BB is not going to change it has been this way since its inception.

So now that I have that out of my system, what is it you would like to discuss?

Logical
04-14-2008, 08:37 PM
Fairly new to DC though.What you are complaining about is the reason DC was created and that religion as a topic has been recently banished here.

banyon
04-14-2008, 08:37 PM
Fairly new to DC though.

Welcome to the subforum where we have just as many pissing contests, but use more syllables to wage them. :thumb:

Guru
04-14-2008, 08:42 PM
OK, you want to discuss it. Fine I will discuss it with you. But only you can do something to fix it, this BB is not going to change it has been this way since its inception.

So now that I have that out of my system, what is it you would like to discuss?

this was only because of Pet and his Rush bot comment. I listen to Rush. I agree with some things. I disagree with some things. I have heard several people with the same take. I do feel like I get more information from his program then what I get from the the "news" channels like CNN, MSNBC and the major networks. But yet, somehow, this makes me unable to think for myself because I actively seek info that makes some sense to me.

Logical
04-14-2008, 08:43 PM
Welcome to the subforum where we have just as many pissing contests, but use more syllables to wage them. :thumb::clap:

Guru
04-14-2008, 08:43 PM
What you are complaining about is the reason DC was created and that religion as a topic has been recently banished here.

I generally ignored it all back then. I just feel stronger about this years elections than in the past.

Logical
04-14-2008, 08:45 PM
this was only because of Pet and his Rush bot comment. I listen to Rush. I agree with some things. I disagree with some things. I have heard several people with the same take. I do feel like I get more information from his program then what I get from the the "news" channels like CNN, MSNBC and the major networks. But yet, somehow, this makes me unable to think for myself because I actively seek info that makes some sense to me.
Hey I commiserate my conservtive friends at work consider me a traitor because I also watch Keith Olberman and Bill Maher along with O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, etc.

Guru
04-14-2008, 08:52 PM
Hey I commiserate my conservtive friends at work consider me a traitor because I also watch Keith Olberman and Bill Maher along with O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, etc.

Can't stand Olberman, he is no journalist (not that he claims to be one). I get a real kick out of Maher until he bashes Catholics. O'Reily can be a real pinhead at times but I do enjoy his program. Hannity and colmes is a very interesting mix. They are both extreme in their opinions yet still get along.

The one that entertains me the most though is Beck on Headline News. I prefer his presentations to Rush or Hannity.

I make no secret that I lean conservative but I do want to hear decent takes from all sides rather than just a bunch of bashing and whining.

I have seen a few Dem shows and listened to some on the radio, can't think of their names, but they were very hateful in their presentations. Very hard to listen to or take seriously.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 08:54 PM
this was only because of Pet and his Rush bot comment. I listen to Rush. I agree with some things. I disagree with some things. I have heard several people with the same take. I do feel like I get more information from his program then what I get from the the "news" channels like CNN, MSNBC and the major networks. But yet, somehow, this makes me unable to think for myself because I actively seek info that makes some sense to me.

Dude I never called you a Rush-bot. You just took offense to a comment I made that referenced nothing about you. So you made the assumption and I just couldn't pass up the door you left wide open for a wise ass comment.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 09:23 PM
Saying have a fair trading field or we won't trade is not proectionist. It's fair. DUH!

:LOL:

Trading with people who stiff us on our end and get all or most of the benefit is called selling out. That would be "globalization" for you in Rushland and Rio Linde.

You would of been a classic slave owner. Why pay someone a decent and fair wage when you can slave them out. Or in this case employee Chinese\North Korea sweatshops.

Again the hypocracy of the "alleged" conservative.

What hypocrisy? Do you know what that word means?

When I was growing up, my mother used to tell me that the world didn't owe me a living and it would be up to me to earn my way. I take it that you didn't hear that a lot.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 09:25 PM
:LOL:



What hypocrisy? Do you know what that word means?

When I was growing up, my mother used to tell me that the world didn't owe me a living and it would be up to me to earn my way. I take it that you didn't hear that a lot.

Ah, the "I was told life ain't fair" routine. Rushies are becoming as predictable as the Libs.

Yes I do...as Rush always likes to say "words have meaning". So you listen to the words he says about McCain and watch what he will do to keep a Dem from beating him?

Nice try though.

Guru
04-14-2008, 09:42 PM
Ah, the "I was told life ain't fair" routine. Rushies are becoming as predictable as the Libs.

Yes I do...as Rush always likes to say "words have meaning". So you listen to the words he says about McCain and watch what he will do to keep a Dem from beating him?

Nice try though.
:shake:

patteeu
04-14-2008, 09:55 PM
Ah, the "I was told life ain't fair" routine. Rushies are becoming as predictable as the Libs.

Yes I do...as Rush always likes to say "words have meaning". So you listen to the words he says about McCain and watch what he will do to keep a Dem from beating him?

Nice try though.

I really don't understand what you're saying here, but I understood you to be complaining about how unfair life has gotten for those who expected to make $20 an hour doing work that a Chinaman will do for $3. That sounds like the lament of a man who thinks the world owes him a living.

petegz28
04-14-2008, 10:48 PM
I really don't understand what you're saying here, but I understood you to be complaining about how unfair life has gotten for those who expected to make $20 an hour doing work that a Chinaman will do for $3. That sounds like the lament of a man who thinks the world owes him a living.

Thank you, just proved my entire point with your repeated Rushisms. It's all about the money. **** the country, **** the people, I want my money!

The Romans thought that way too at one point.

stevieray
04-15-2008, 06:19 AM
Thank you, just proved my entire point with your repeated Rushisms. It's all about the money. **** the country, **** the people, I want my money!

The Romans thought that way too at one point.

drama much? repeatedly using Rush as your reason makes you look weak.

btw, pete, you need to do your homework on our exports and imports with China. Clinton lopsided it, and Bush brought it back...

patteeu
04-15-2008, 07:02 AM
Thank you, just proved my entire point with your repeated Rushisms. It's all about the money. **** the country, **** the people, I want my money!

The Romans thought that way too at one point.

More and more I'm beginning to think you don't really have a point.

BTW, I wasn't the one whining about losing the $20 gravy train when someone else was willing to do the job for $3. If your entire argument, to the extent that you have one, isn't all about money then I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 08:00 AM
drama much? repeatedly using Rush as your reason makes you look weak.

btw, pete, you need to do your homework on our exports and imports with China. Clinton lopsided it, and Bush brought it back...

LOL brought what back? That is funny!!! ROFL

petegz28
04-15-2008, 08:02 AM
More and more I'm beginning to think you don't really have a point.

BTW, I wasn't the one whining about losing the $20 gravy train when someone else was willing to do the job for $3. If your entire argument, to the extent that you have one, isn't all about money then I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Yes well the problem with you and the Right these days is they seem to have lost any sort of ethics they had.

You probably don't have a clue of what I am talking about cause all you do is listen to Rush telling you how cool it is to employ slave labor and put Americans out of work.

Yet you are probably dead set against Illegals taking jobs here aren't you?

petegz28
04-15-2008, 08:04 AM
drama much? repeatedly using Rush as your reason makes you look weak.

btw, pete, you need to do your homework on our exports and imports with China. Clinton lopsided it, and Bush brought it back...

You mean the inflation we are now importing from China? ROFL


You guys are too much. Slam Rush and you get your panties in a wad.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 08:12 AM
Yes well the problem with you and the Right these days is they seem to have lost any sort of ethics they had.

You probably don't have a clue of what I am talking about cause all you do is listen to Rush telling you how cool it is to employ slave labor and put Americans out of work.

Yet you are probably dead set against Illegals taking jobs here aren't you?

I'm against illegal immigration (although I'm certainly not as hawkish on the issue as many), but I'm receptive to immigration and to immigrants taking jobs.

And since you never quite get around to describing what you're talking about, I plead guilty to being left somewhat in the dark about what you specifically mean by "ethics" in this context.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 08:19 AM
I'm against illegal immigration (although I'm certainly not as hawkish on the issue as many), but I'm receptive to immigration and to immigrants taking jobs.

And since you never quite get around to describing what you're talking about, I plead guilty to being left somewhat in the dark about what you specifically mean by "ethics" in this context.

I am not suprised 1 iota that you ask about what "etchics" I mean. ROFL That again secures the point I am making.

Illegal immigration is one of the ultimate forms of capitalism. Why are you so against it? I mean if I hire someone who is illegal I can pay them much cheaper, don't have to pay them any sort of benefits or any other overhead costs normally associated with employing a person. And it makes me the most money!

So why are you against it but yet you will ship jobs off to China and India for the same reason of making a $?

See, that is called hypocrisy. You are all for exploiting cheap labor and such until it comes to someone doing it to you in your own country. Then all the sudden "globalization" seems to lose a lot of its luster heh?

And to help you out the ethics I am talking about are those where you don't put hard working individuals out of work so you can increase your millions of $'s by an additional million or so.

Just remember Mrs. patteeu, Capitalism without Ethics=Slavery.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 08:46 AM
I am not suprised 1 iota that you ask about what "etchics" I mean. ROFL That again secures the point I am making.

Of course it does. It secures your point so securely that you don't even need to bother explaining what your point is. :rolleyes:

Illegal immigration is one of the ultimate forms of capitalism. Why are you so against it? I mean if I hire someone who is illegal I can pay them much cheaper, don't have to pay them any sort of benefits or any other overhead costs normally associated with employing a person. And it makes me the most money!

So why are you against it but yet you will ship jobs off to China and India for the same reason of making a $?

Just to be clear, I don't mind when poor Mexicans come to America and take your $20/hr unskilled labor job by offering to do it for $3. I object to anyone coming here illegally as a matter of border integrity but I'm not against immigration. Losing jobs to foreigners isn't a significant factor in my immigration position. I'm more concerned with cultural issues and would like to see legal immigrants learn English and try to assimilate when they move here.

See, that is called hypocrisy. You are all for exploiting cheap labor and such until it comes to someone doing it to you in your own country. Then all the sudden "globalization" seems to lose a lot of its luster heh?

You're not very good at this. Globalization is a fact of life. We can either learn to adapt to it or we can turtle up and wish it weren't so. The latter course of action is a sure loser in the long run, IMO.

And to help you out the ethics I am talking about are those where you don't put hard working individuals out of work so you can increase your millions of $'s by an additional million or so.

Just remember Mrs. patteeu, Capitalism without Ethics=Slavery.

It's sad that you feel like such a victim. My pov is that the hard working individual needs to make himself too valuable to be put out of work or he isn't really pulling his own weight. In the short run, dislocations will happen, but hard working individuals who have something of value to offer will land on their feet. If we follow the path of protectionism, we'll damage not only the millionaires that you seem to despise, but all of their workers as well because Americans will become even less competitive in the global market as we delay going through the adaptation required by globalization.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 08:51 AM
Of course it does. It secures your point so securely that you don't even need to bother explaining what your point is. :rolleyes:



Just to be clear, I don't mind when poor Mexicans come to America and take your $20/hr unskilled labor job by offering to do it for $3. I object to anyone coming here illegally as a matter of border integrity but I'm not against immigration. Losing jobs to foreigners isn't a significant factor in my immigration position. I'm more concerned with cultural issues and would like to see legal immigrants learn English and try to assimilate when they move here.



You're not very good at this. Globalization is a fact of life. We can either learn to adapt to it or we can turtle up and wish it weren't so. The latter course of action is a sure loser in the long run, IMO.



It's sad that you feel like such a victim. My pov is that the hard working individual needs to make himself too valuable to be put out of work or he isn't really pulling his own weight. In the short run, dislocations will happen, but hard working individuals who have something of value to offer will land on their feet. If we follow the path of protectionism, we'll damage not only the millionaires that you seem to despise, but all of their workers as well because Americans will become even less competitive in the global market as we delay going through the adaptation required by globalization.

Gee another Rushism. I was where you are once. You keep telling yourself there is a diffeence between hiring illegals and exploiting sweat shops in North Korea ok?

patteeu
04-15-2008, 08:54 AM
Gee another Rushism. I was where you are once. You keep telling yourself there is a diffeence between hiring illegals and exploiting sweat shops in North Korea ok?

I'm confident that you were never where I am.

And while there is a distinct difference between hiring illegals and exploiting foreign sweatshops, I'm pretty sure that I'm not telling myself what you think I'm telling myself.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 08:55 AM
Of course it does. It secures your point so securely that you don't even need to bother explaining what your point is. :rolleyes:



Just to be clear, I don't mind when poor Mexicans come to America and take your $20/hr unskilled labor job by offering to do it for $3. I object to anyone coming here illegally as a matter of border integrity but I'm not against immigration. Losing jobs to foreigners isn't a significant factor in my immigration position. I'm more concerned with cultural issues and would like to see legal immigrants learn English and try to assimilate when they move here.



You're not very good at this. Globalization is a fact of life. We can either learn to adapt to it or we can turtle up and wish it weren't so. The latter course of action is a sure loser in the long run, IMO.



It's sad that you feel like such a victim. My pov is that the hard working individual needs to make himself too valuable to be put out of work or he isn't really pulling his own weight. In the short run, dislocations will happen, but hard working individuals who have something of value to offer will land on their feet. If we follow the path of protectionism, we'll damage not only the millionaires that you seem to despise, but all of their workers as well because Americans will become even less competitive in the global market as we delay going through the adaptation required by globalization.

Gee another Rushism. I was where you are once. You keep telling yourself there is a diffeence between hiring illegals and exploiting sweat shops in North Korea ok?

Adapting to "globalization" does not mean we have to sell out this country like we have.

I do find it humorous how you pretend to not know the point I am making.
Then again people like you and Rush seem to think it ok to send our kids to war to liberate people from evil dictators as we pay other evil dictators to make the hats and flags that we carry into said war.

I hope one day you wake up to the reality and quit letting the almighty $ blind your view.

Ethics. You know this to be true. The Right claims the Left has none and I would agree for the most part. But that is just finger pointing cause the Right has none either.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 08:57 AM
I'm confident that you were never where I am.

And while there is a distinct difference between hiring illegals and exploiting foreign sweatshops, I'm pretty sure that I'm not telling myself what you think I'm telling myself.

Well see there you go. You want to pretend I was never a Rushie? Fine.

I know I am dumping too much reality for the likes of the Rush and Hannity crowd to grasp.

Chief Henry
04-15-2008, 09:00 AM
It looks like Pete is bitter. Do you need to go rub one out ?

patteeu
04-15-2008, 09:05 AM
Adapting to "globalization" does not mean we have to sell out this country like we have.

I do find it humorous how you pretend to not know the point I am making.
Then again people like you and Rush seem to think it ok to send our kids to war to liberate people from evil dictators as we pay other evil dictators to make the hats and flags that we carry into said war.

I hope one day you wake up to the reality and quit letting the almighty $ blind your view.

Ethics. You know this to be true. The Right claims the Left has none and I would agree for the most part. But that is just finger pointing cause the Right has none either.

You talk in such general terms that it's difficult to even understand what you're thinking, much less argue specifically with your ill-defined point.

Adapting to globalization means that we need to trim our overhead and boost our productivity so that we won't have to see our standards of living fall in order to compete with the cheap labor and low regulation environments of many 3rd world countries. I have no idea what you mean by "sell out this country". It's a meaningless phrase. I presume you are sore because we trade with countries that don't have minimum wage laws, pollution regulation, and high corporate taxes like we do, but your suggestion that we stop trading with those countries is the equivalent of imposing trade sanctions against ourselves.

We need to focus on making ourselves more competitive rather than on demanding that other countries make themselves less competitive (by adopting US-style regulatory and tax schemes). Let foreign citizens fight for their own minimum wage laws if that's what they want. If they are content making $3/hr, then find a way to produce 7 times as much as they do in an hour so you can earn your $20/hr paycheck. Quit whining like a little baby. Show some pride.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 09:22 AM
You talk in such general terms that it's difficult to even understand what you're thinking, much less argue specifically with your ill-defined point.

Adapting to globalization means that we need to trim our overhead and boost our productivity so that we won't have to see our standards of living fall in order to compete with the cheap labor and low regulation environments of many 3rd world countries. I have no idea what you mean by "sell out this country". It's a meaningless phrase. I presume you are sore because we trade with countries that don't have minimum wage laws, pollution regulation, and high corporate taxes like we do, but your suggestion that we stop trading with those countries is the equivalent of imposing trade sanctions against ourselves.

We need to focus on making ourselves more competitive rather than on demanding that other countries make themselves less competitive (by adopting US-style regulatory and tax schemes). Let foreign citizens fight for their own minimum wage laws if that's what they want. If they are content making $3/hr, then find a way to produce 7 times as much as they do in an hour so you can earn your $20/hr paycheck. Quit whining like a little baby. Show some pride.

Let's just say you are for free trade but not so much fair trade. Yes, it's a crime that we have pollution laws and that we don't let people get paid $2 an hour I know. It's a wonder we have any rich people in this country at all isn't it?

Pride? You are all for shelling jobs out to countries that use slave labor and such and you want to talk to me about Pride? How abotu tking a little Pride in your country and fellow man? Oh yeah that would involve thinking outside of yourself.

How about giving a **** about someone besides just you?

And you call it whining? That is the funniest part of it all.

You are obviously a faux con

petegz28
04-15-2008, 09:29 AM
It looks like Pete is bitter. Do you need to go rub one out ?

No actualyl I am hving so much fun. For years I argued with Libs only to find out that the modern-day Republican is really not much different.

As you can see some here who claim to be "Great Americans" have no problems putting you out of work to give your job to India or China in order to make an extra $. Ok fine. So why don't those people go live there? Why do these people not live in China? I mean do they not want to live where pollution is bad and there are no fair wages to be had?


And one even threw out Pride. Told me to have Pride as they tell me how much of a good thing it is we exploit slave labor at the cost of our own jobs.

How ironic. I guess it just comes down to what you take Pride in? Some here obviously take little in their country.

Chief Henry
04-15-2008, 09:32 AM
No actualyl I am hving so much fun. For years I argued with Libs only to find out that the modern-day Republican is really not much different.

As you can see some here who claim to be "Great Americans" have no problems putting you out of work to give your job to India or China in order to make an extra $. Ok fine. So why don't those people go live there? Why do these people not live in China? I mean do they not want to live where pollution is bad and there are no fair wages to be had?


And one even threw out Pride. Told me to have Pride as they tell me how much of a good thing it is we exploit slave labor at the cost of our own jobs.

How ironic. I guess it just comes down to what you take Pride in? Some here obviously take little in their country.

Did you loose your job?

petegz28
04-15-2008, 09:40 AM
Did you loose your job?

Nope. But I know several who have and have seen the impacts of it. I am all for fair trade and global trade. I am not for trade that puts Americans out of work though. I have pride in my country and my fellow man. And I could not and am not comfortable telling some guy who is busting his ass off that his job was handed to someone in another country.

Particularly when the other country does such thing like uses sweat shops or slave labor.

I would not want to be treated like that. You would not want to be treated like that. So how the **** can we sit here and say it is good to make money off of people who have no choice about being treated like that?


All we have done and are doing is just outsourcing the slavery. There are still Americans making huge $ of slave labor. It may be capitalist. But it is not American nor ethical.

Well at least not for those who care about more than just themselves. :D

HonestChieffan
04-15-2008, 09:54 AM
Do you buy anything at walmart

petegz28
04-15-2008, 09:59 AM
Do you buy anything at walmart

Ok here we go with Rush tactic #2. Of course I do. You cannot buy anything much anymore in this country that isn't made somewhere else be it at Wal-Mart or Best Buy or anywhere else.

So please let's not play the child-like arguments Rush likes to use on his callers.

How man American cars do you own? Now that is a more legitimate question cause you can actually make a choice, well to a point.

Save the gotcah stuff. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the Right and their hero Rush.

However the simple fact that you cannot go hardly anywhere without buying something made in another country is kind of the point I am getting at.

We are at a point you cannot buy American even if you wanted too.

Do you get it?

patteeu
04-15-2008, 10:12 AM
Let's just say you are for free trade but not so much fair trade. Yes, it's a crime that we have pollution laws and that we don't let people get paid $2 an hour I know. It's a wonder we have any rich people in this country at all isn't it?

Pride? You are all for shelling jobs out to countries that use slave labor and such and you want to talk to me about Pride? How abotu tking a little Pride in your country and fellow man? Oh yeah that would involve thinking outside of yourself.

How about giving a **** about someone besides just you?

And you call it whining? That is the funniest part of it all.

You are obviously a faux con

I consider it a fair trade when I voluntarily trade $3 for one hours worth of labor with a guy who voluntarily trades one hour of labor for $3.

But don't get me wrong. I feel really sorry for guys like you who've allowed yourselves to grow dependent on government protection even if I don't think you are entitled to make buggy whips for $20/hr plus a generous pension for the rest of your working life.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 10:18 AM
Nope. But I know several who have and have seen the impacts of it. I am all for fair trade and global trade. I am not for trade that puts Americans out of work though. I have pride in my country and my fellow man. And I could not and am not comfortable telling some guy who is busting his ass off that his job was handed to someone in another country.

Particularly when the other country does such thing like uses sweat shops or slave labor.

I would not want to be treated like that. You would not want to be treated like that. So how the **** can we sit here and say it is good to make money off of people who have no choice about being treated like that?


All we have done and are doing is just outsourcing the slavery. There are still Americans making huge $ of slave labor. It may be capitalist. But it is not American nor ethical.

Well at least not for those who care about more than just themselves. :D

What you seem to be missing is that *they* want to be treated that way because it lifts them out of the even greater poverty that is their alternative.

I doubt that you do much deep thinking, but in the unlikely event that you decide to give your brain a little exercise, I encourage you to think about ways that the US can make itself more competitive instead of munching on intellectual junk food about how foreigners are stealing your jobs or about how fat cat capitalists are shipping those jobs overseas.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 10:19 AM
Ok here we go with Rush tactic #2. Of course I do. You cannot buy anything much anymore in this country that isn't made somewhere else be it at Wal-Mart or Best Buy or anywhere else.

So please let's not play the child-like arguments Rush likes to use on his callers.

How man American cars do you own? Now that is a more legitimate question cause you can actually make a choice, well to a point.

Save the gotcah stuff. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the Right and their hero Rush.

However the simple fact that you cannot go hardly anywhere without buying something made in another country is kind of the point I am getting at.

We are at a point you cannot buy American even if you wanted too.

Do you get it?

Sounds like hypocrisy and a lack of ethics to me. :shrug:

petegz28
04-15-2008, 10:43 AM
What you seem to be missing is that *they* want to be treated that way because it lifts them out of the even greater poverty that is their alternative.

I doubt that you do much deep thinking, but in the unlikely event that you decide to give your brain a little exercise, I encourage you to think about ways that the US can make itself more competitive instead of munching on intellectual junk food about how foreigners are stealing your jobs or about how fat cat capitalists are shipping those jobs overseas.


Keep telling yourself that.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 10:49 AM
Sounds like hypocrisy and a lack of ethics to me. :shrug:

Gee, don't let the fact that I called that retort before you even said it telly you anything.

Real witty you are.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 10:57 AM
Gee, don't let the fact that I called that retort before you even said it telly you anything.

Real witty you are.

Do you piss on American jobs by buying cheap import products daily or do you only sell your country out on an occasional basis?

RaiderH8r
04-15-2008, 11:10 AM
I consider it a fair trade when I voluntarily trade $3 for one hours worth of labor with a guy who voluntarily trades one hour of labor for $3.

But don't get me wrong. I feel really sorry for guys like you who've allowed yourselves to grow dependent on government protection even if I don't think you are entitled to make buggy whips for $20/hr plus a generous pension for the rest of your working life.

B-I-N-G-O.

This is the problem with trying to debate an issue as complex as the benefits, liabilities, and problems of international trade with people who have garnered the sum of their knowledge on the issue from bumper stickers and cutesy one liners courtesy of Al Franken types.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 11:32 AM
B-I-N-G-O.

This is the problem with trying to debate an issue as complex as the benefits, liabilities, and problems of international trade with people who have garnered the sum of their knowledge on the issue from bumper stickers and cutesy one liners courtesy of Al Franken types.

Translation: I have no problem witht he exploitation of slave labor.

Look I understand at this point most Americans have little choice on where their products come from.

I also understand though that something could be done about it and isn't all for the sake of $.

I also understand it is primarily the Right that speaheads unfair trade practices.


So just to make sure I understand you s a Rush supporter, are you saying it was ok to go into Iraq for "liberation" purposes on one hand but yet ignore the fact that a lot of our chinese products are made in North Korean worker camps?

And truse me, no one WANTS to be the North Korean worker contrary to what some may say.

See I see it as we turn a blind eye to it and say "as long as my stuff is cheap and the slaves are not in this country I am all for it".

That may be great financialy for some but wrong on so many other accounts.

We won't negotiate with Iran, North Korea or Cuba unless they meet all these prerequisites yet we have no problem shipping our money off to other countries that are in some cases far worse than those 3 from a humanitarian perspective without batting an eye.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 11:38 AM
Translation: I have no problem witht he exploitation of slave labor.

Look I understand at this point most Americans have little choice on where their products come from.

I also understand though that something could be done about it and isn't all for the sake of $.

I also understand it is primarily the Right that speaheads unfair trade practices.


So just to make sure I understand you s a Rush supporter, are you saying it was ok to go into Iraq for "liberation" purposes on one hand but yet ignore the fact that a lot of our chinese products are made in North Korean worker camps?

And truse me, no one WANTS to be the North Korean worker contrary to what some may say.

See I see it as we turn a blind eye to it and say "as long as my stuff is cheap and the slaves are not in this country I am all for it".

That may be great financialy for some but wrong on so many other accounts.

We won't negotiate with Iran, North Korea or Cuba unless they meet all these prerequisites yet we have no problem shipping our money off to other countries that are in some cases far worse than those 3 from a humanitarian perspective without batting an eye.

WTF? Little choice about where your products come from? :BS:

If you choose to shop at walmart in order to take advantage of their convenience and their cheap prices, that's on you. What products do you absolutely need that you are forced to buy from slave masters? I'll help you think of an ethical alternative so you can stop being a hypocrite.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 11:45 AM
WTF? Little choice about where your products come from? :BS:

If you choose to shop at walmart in order to take advantage of their convenience and their cheap prices, that's on you. What products do you absolutely need that you are forced to buy from slave masters? I'll help you think of an ethical alternative so you can stop being a hypocrite.

Dude I cannot even go to the grocery store and buy fruit without it being from another country. I do however frequent local farmer markets but we just can't grow bananas in Ks. So I am stuck getting them from Chile!

That is right. Little choice. When everything in the country is from another country what choice do you have?


So as I asked someone else...how man American cars do you own?

I swear it's like arguing with Rush himself. I can spout off all these "reasons" and "concpets" and such before you guys even say them. That is the sad part. I used to think just like you are now.

Let's not pretend Wal-Mart is the only one selling imported products shall we?

This is why we got our ass kicked in the last election. It is also why I left the party.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 11:50 AM
You guys crack me up....on one hand Rushies want globalization but on the other they get pissed when someone waves another country's flag on the sunset strip!!!

I guess loyalty to your country is just something you allged "cons" have when it sounds good. Sounds awful libby to me.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 11:57 AM
Dude I cannot even go to the grocery store and buy fruit without it being from another country. I do however frequent local farmer markets but we just can't grow bananas in Ks. So I am stuck getting them from Chile!

Don't eat bananas you selfish bastard. Next.

That is right. Little choice. When everything in the country is from another country what choice do you have?

You have fewer choices and your choices are more expensive. That's the price you pay to protect American jobs and to protect foreign cheap laborers from earning a living in sweatshops and on plantations. Deal with it. Get your food from farmers markets and meat lockers or choose the products you buy in the grocery store carefully and you will be able to purchase nutritionally-sufficient, domestically-produced food.

So as I asked someone else...how man American cars do you own?

I swear it's like arguing with Rush himself. I can spout off all these "reasons" and "concpets" and such before you guys even say them. That is the sad part. I used to think just like you are now.

Let's not pretend Wal-Mart is the only one selling imported products shall we?

This is why we got our ass kicked in the last election. It is also why I left the party.

I'm quite confident that you never used to think like I do.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 12:02 PM
Don't eat bananas you selfish bastard. Next.



You have fewer choices and your choices are more expensive. That's the price you pay to protect American jobs and to protect foreign cheap laborers from earning a living in sweatshops and on plantations. Deal with it. Get your food from farmers markets and meat lockers or choose the products you buy in the grocery store carefully and you will be able to purchase nutritionally-sufficient, domestically-produced food.



I'm quite confident that you never used to think like I do.

Well that should tell you about your self-judgment. I voted for Bush twice and have been a staunch conservative my whole life.

And yes you are right, I have "few" choices.

Let me guess, you are one of these people with an American flag on your Lexus right?

And yes how selfish of me to eat bananas. And a bastard no less :)

RaiderH8r
04-15-2008, 12:05 PM
Translation: I have no problem witht he exploitation of slave labor.

Look I understand at this point most Americans have little choice on where their products come from.

I also understand though that something could be done about it and isn't all for the sake of $.

I also understand it is primarily the Right that speaheads unfair trade practices.


So just to make sure I understand you s a Rush supporter, are you saying it was ok to go into Iraq for "liberation" purposes on one hand but yet ignore the fact that a lot of our chinese products are made in North Korean worker camps?

And truse me, no one WANTS to be the North Korean worker contrary to what some may say.

See I see it as we turn a blind eye to it and say "as long as my stuff is cheap and the slaves are not in this country I am all for it".

That may be great financialy for some but wrong on so many other accounts.

We won't negotiate with Iran, North Korea or Cuba unless they meet all these prerequisites yet we have no problem shipping our money off to other countries that are in some cases far worse than those 3 from a humanitarian perspective without batting an eye.

Americans have tremendous choice in where their products come from.

I don't listen to Limbaugh, I don't have time for hyperbolic tripe.

North Korea is a problem of epic proportions, even more so than China. China appears ready to play a little ball. They're getting a taste of the good life and liking it. Even within their own region the widely held belief in Taiwan, S. Korea, China et al isn't that North Korea is the most pressing threat in the region, it is Japan. Stemming from Japan's actions leading up to and during WWII. N. Korea has a 2 million man army and ICBMs, it's a little stickier wicket. Policy now appears to be, contain them, isolate them, apply pressure through China, but ultimately wait til that crazy, sawed off little focker kicks it and work with the next guy.

Furthermore, I make the effort to buy quality products. Most of the time that excludes Chinese products...ALL of the time that excludes Wal-Mart. I buy American produce from farmer's markets. Why? Quality. I buy American-made clothes, mostly, some of my suits are made in Canada and Italy. Do you know what that costs me? A lot but it's American and its quality. Toys? You'd be outside of your f'n skullbone to think I'm giving Wal-Mart crap to my kid. Setting aside the Chinese crap about lead the last thing I want is my kid choking on some POS knockoff from Wal-Mart. Norway and Sweden make some fine children's toys. What can I say? My electronics are Japanese. Does some of all of the consumables I purchase come from China? Guaranteed. Do I do so purposefully? No.

It's a global market and the entitled American union worker has played his hand. They have made their unholy alliances with environmental groups and socialist organizations that have supported tax policy that make manufacturing uneconomical in our country. That's their fault. Their union leaders had them strike and strike and strike again to get better pay and better benefits and while the Unions celebrated their victory the business owner was prepping for the move out of the country. Away from oppressive tax policy and away from self entitled socialism and away from the labor movement. Why doesn't the AFL-CIO head on over to China to unionize their labor force? That would go a lot further to evening the playing field than anything in Congress. Certainly moreso than protectionist tariffs. There are roughly 1.3 billion Chinese and every country wants into that consumer market, our trade war with them would be laughed off by the Chinese and mocked in the global markets as supremely inbecilic.

Fair this, fair that. "Life isn't fair." No shit, Fair is where you go for Cotton candy, life ain't fair.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 12:11 PM
Well that should tell you about your self-judgment. I voted for Bush twice and have been a staunch conservative my whole life.

And yes you are right, I have "few" choices.

Let me guess, you are one of these people with an American flag on your Lexus right?

You've voted for Bush more than I have then. I have my doubts about whether you've ever really been a conservative though. But that's beside the point. The past is over and we're in the present now. You're no longer a conservative as far as I can tell.

And yes how selfish of me to eat bananas. And a bastard no less :)

By "bastard" I really only meant "unethical hypocrite". No real offense intended. :p

RaiderH8r
04-15-2008, 12:14 PM
Dude I cannot even go to the grocery store and buy fruit without it being from another country. I do however frequent local farmer markets but we just can't grow bananas in Ks. So I am stuck getting them from Chile!

Either I missed the acres of orange orchards or Kansas doesn't grow those either.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 12:32 PM
Either I missed the acres of orange orchards or Kansas doesn't grow those either.

Yeah but I don't have to get my oranges from Chile! I can go to Brazil. HA!!!! ROFL

petegz28
04-15-2008, 12:34 PM
You've voted for Bush more than I have then. I have my doubts about whether you've ever really been a conservative though. But that's beside the point. The past is over and we're in the present now. You're no longer a conservative as far as I can tell.



By "bastard" I really only meant "unethical hypocrite". No real offense intended. :p

First you call me Protectionist which is the epitome of conservatism and now you are telling me I am not or never was conservative?

Seems to me I have been right all along about you which is you are an "alleged" conservative.

RaiderH8r
04-15-2008, 12:36 PM
Yeah but I don't have to get my oranges from Chile! I can go to Brazil. HA!!!! ROFL

Well...ultimately you probably get them from Florida but you got my point in spite of my oversight. There are just certain things you are going to have to import. I'm a capitalist, I look for quality at value. When I find it I buy it. Like I said, that generally rules out China and always rules out Wal-Mart.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 12:46 PM
First you call me Protectionist which is the epitome of conservatism and now you are telling me I am not or never was conservative?

Seems to me I have been right all along about you which is you are an "alleged" conservative.

I understand that long ago (probably before you were politically aware), conservatives tended to be protectionists. I also understand that there is a minority streak of protectionism among conservatives today in the Pat Buchanan mold. But I certainly wouldn't call protectionism the epitome of conservativism.

I think that what's happening here is that your bitterness over economic disruptions in your life or in the lives of those around you is leading you to cling to the populist prescriptions of liberal trade unions, socialist environmental organizations, and left wing human rights organizations. May God have mercy on your soul.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 12:48 PM
Well...ultimately you probably get them from Florida but you got my point in spite of my oversight. There are just certain things you are going to have to import. I'm a capitalist, I look for quality at value. When I find it I buy it. Like I said, that generally rules out China and always rules out Wal-Mart.

I don't mind it. But most of what we import from places like China are not "needed".

Why do we just not level the playing field? No one is saying dont have global trade. But not only do we not level the field we play with people are the same types we have gone to war to remove.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 12:49 PM
I understand that long ago (probably before you were politically aware), conservatives tended to be protectionists. I also understand that there is a minority streak of protectionism among conservatives today in the Pat Buchanan mold. But I certainly wouldn't call protectionism the epitome of conservativism.

I think that what's happening here is that your bitterness over economic disruptions in your life or in the lives of those around you is leading you to cling to the populist prescriptions of liberal trade unions, socialist environmental organizations, and left wing human rights organizations. May God have mercy on your soul.

Well Liberals hi-jacked the word "Liberal" so now the Cons are hi-jacking the word "Conservative". WONDERFUL! :)

BTW I have no economic issues. I am probably more fortuante economically than the average person.

I just have a conscience as well. Contrary to what you all seem to think, there is little one can do about it. I know, I know, there are choies and all this stuff. You "rea" cons have all these great, snippy answers that anymore go as far as Lib answers. Which is not past the usually inaccurate headline.

RaiderH8r
04-15-2008, 12:56 PM
I don't mind it. But most of what we import from places like China are not "needed".

Why do we just not level the playing field? No one is saying dont have global trade. But not only do we not level the field we play with people are the same types we have gone to war to remove.

Need, want, the difference is irrelevant. People will do what people do. Being frustrated at other people's stupidity is the price of freedom...it's the reason I have to tolerate Neo-Communist Lemmings (hereafter neocom lemmings). But se la vie.

On to the point, I hear "level the playing field" all the time. How? Tariffs? Trade sanctions? What could be done that would not be perceived as a hostile maneuver by the Chinese that they would not change their policy with regards to allowing American goods into their country while we take a protectionist policy regarding Chinese imports? My point is that in a trade war China wins hands down. And don't think because of our current trade deficit we don't export plenty of goods to China...Caterpillar would be in a world of sheeit if a trade war with China were to occur.

Furthermore the geopolitical implications of alienating China via trade war would be quite problematic. Currently China is the only conduit through which any small measure of diplomacy with N. Korea can take place. So, if you dissent with the current war and support diplomacy with the M.E., what about this clear failure in diplomacy as a result of "leveling the playing field" would suit your needs?

petegz28
04-15-2008, 01:05 PM
Need, want, the difference is irrelevant. People will do what people do. Being frustrated at other people's stupidity is the price of freedom...it's the reason I have to tolerate Neo-Communist Lemmings (hereafter neocom lemmings). But se la vie.

On to the point, I hear "level the playing field" all the time. How? Tariffs? Trade sanctions? What could be done that would not be perceived as a hostile maneuver by the Chinese that they would not change their policy with regards to allowing American goods into their country while we take a protectionist policy regarding Chinese imports? My point is that in a trade war China wins hands down. And don't think because of our current trade deficit we don't export plenty of goods to China...Caterpillar would be in a world of sheeit if a trade war with China were to occur.

Furthermore the geopolitical implications of alienating China via trade war would be quite problematic. Currently China is the only conduit through which any small measure of diplomacy with N. Korea can take place. So, if you dissent with the current war and support diplomacy with the M.E., what about this clear failure in diplomacy as a result of "leveling the playing field" would suit your needs?

Ah there it is....YOU'RE SCARED! And you know what? The world knows it. OMG if we stopped trading with China until they leveled the playing field we would suffere oh so much, bla bla bla bla.

China would suffer more thereby giving us leverage. Except the current Admin has allowed China to basically buy us out. I man Christ, we are financing our "stimulus" checks with money borrowed from China.

And now we need them for diplomacy for NK?

Jesus Christ and do you people actually listen to yourselves?

We broke away from a country and all the alledged benefits we receieved from it once.

Now we are too scared.

So heaven forbid we don't alienate China. Meanwhile we got kids getting blown up in Iraq in the name of liberating people from tyranny and oppression.

ROFL

HonestChieffan
04-15-2008, 01:06 PM
Rock on Pete...rail against oppression and wake people up.

Radar Chief
04-15-2008, 01:10 PM
Rock on Pete...rail against oppression and wake people up.

Eviscerate the proletariat! :cuss: Oh, wait….

petegz28
04-15-2008, 01:11 PM
Rock on Pete...rail against oppression and wake people up.

I'm just saying that our greed for $'s in this country has driven us to seek out the most oppressed and exploited people int his world for nothing more than to make a quick buck off of their plight. And we get a Jesus complex from it because "we gave you a job". Nevermind it is a job that you yourself nor anyone you know in this country would ever do for such piss-poor pay.

I mean there is a reason most of our imported stuff in the Wal-Marts and such come from China as opposed to let's say France. Then again, Fracne doesn't run their own people over with tanks for protesting so what fun is it to do business with them?

RaiderH8r
04-15-2008, 01:49 PM
Ah there it is....YOU'RE SCARED! And you know what? The world knows it. OMG if we stopped trading with China until they leveled the playing field we would suffere oh so much, bla bla bla bla.

China would suffer more thereby giving us leverage. Except the current Admin has allowed China to basically buy us out. I man Christ, we are financing our "stimulus" checks with money borrowed from China.

And now we need them for diplomacy for NK?

Jesus Christ and do you people actually listen to yourselves?

We broke away from a country and all the alledged benefits we receieved from it once.

Now we are too scared.

So heaven forbid we don't alienate China. Meanwhile we got kids getting blown up in Iraq in the name of liberating people from tyranny and oppression.

ROFL

You are outside of your f'n skull if you think China gives two tinker's shits about the US keeping them out. There are dozens more countries ready and willing to export to China and engage them. So, we piss off china and lose roughly $70-$80 Billion/yr. in exports to China. China ranks as our 4th largest trading partner and is growing at a clip of roughly 170% that our other trading partners...at best. China's top 5 imports from the US include computers, transportation equipment, chemical, machinery, ag. So a trade war with them hits Silicon Valley, Dow, Monsanto, Con Ag, Cat, ADM, Farmers, toolers, what remaining production manufacturing we have in the US (which, coincidentally are union jobs) US steel, coal, etc. Kansas' exports alone in 2005 were $313 million to China. NY-$2.1B, IL-$1.2B, PA-$933M, CA-$7.9B, I could go on. Those are a lot of states with a lot of jobs and a lot of union folks who want to "level the playing field" as you so eloquently have put it.

The world has shifted with respect to China's economy, what worked in the past won't work now. Protectionism isolates the US markets and will make the current "economic slowdown" look pale in comparison. With US entitlement spending rising and set to explode with the impending retirement of the gimme generation (baby boomers) the US is going to need all of the foreign capital it can lay its hands on in return for goods and services, not via loans and bond purchases.

Your shortsighted vision of global trade policy is the product of misinformation, apathy, and fear. I have simply stated there will be consequences beyond anything you have even attempted to comprehend, but what should I expect from a bumper sticker PhD?

And yes, China is a valuable partner for diplomacy with N. Korea. I don't know what you would hope to accomplish in the way of huma rights in N. Korea if we don't to through their benefactor, China. N.Korea pays no mind the ramblings of US protectionists that's for sure.

I'll simply close with this from Emerson:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 01:56 PM
You are outside of your f'n skull if you think China gives two tinker's shits about the US keeping them out. There are dozens more countries ready and willing to export to China and engage them. So, we piss off china and lose roughly $70-$80 Billion/yr. in exports to China. China ranks as our 4th largest trading partner and is growing at a clip of roughly 170% that our other trading partners...at best. China's top 5 imports from the US include computers, transportation equipment, chemical, machinery, ag. So a trade war with them hits Silicon Valley, Dow, Monsanto, Con Ag, Cat, ADM, Farmers, toolers, what remaining production manufacturing we have in the US (which, coincidentally are union jobs) US steel, coal, etc. Kansas' exports alone in 2005 were $313 million to China. NY-$2.1B, IL-$1.2B, PA-$933M, CA-$7.9B, I could go on. Those are a lot of states with a lot of jobs and a lot of union folks who want to "level the playing field" as you so eloquently have put it.

The world has shifted with respect to China's economy, what worked in the past won't work now. Protectionism isolates the US markets and will make the current "economic slowdown" look pale in comparison. With US entitlement spending rising and set to explode with the impending retirement of the gimme generation (baby boomers) the US is going to need all of the foreign capital it can lay its hands on in return for goods and services, not via loans and bond purchases.

Your shortsighted vision of global trade policy is the product of misinformation, apathy, and fear. I have simply stated there will be consequences beyond anything you have even attempted to comprehend, but what should I expect from a bumper sticker PhD?

And yes, China is a valuable partner for diplomacy with N. Korea. I don't know what you would hope to accomplish in the way of huma rights in N. Korea if we don't to through their benefactor, China. N.Korea pays no mind the ramblings of US protectionists that's for sure.

I'll simply close with this from Emerson:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.


I swear for people who give such long responses I think you read little. I never said PROTECTIONIST. It is not Protectionist to demand a fair playing field.

Sure there are consequences. There were consequnces when we went to war with England too. People said the same type of crap (context applicable) as you are now. We managed to drag our own slaves over though as we fought against tyranny and oppression from the King. And now we can afford to keep them in their native countries so it looks like nothing bad is really happening.

You guys are like Libs ready to always take what someone says to the extreme and then try to make your point. China WOULD hurt bad if we shut them off. Don't kid yourself, we are still the big kid on the block. Our leaders are too ****ing greedy not to be.

Who says I want to do anything with North Korea? WTF do I care about them and why should I? Are our troops on their border or are their troops on ours? I am guessing by all the illegals crossing our borders everyday that it is the former.

But hey, we will do business with China who keeps North Korea employed more or less so they can continue the alleged threat that causes us to keep thousands of our kids on their border.

RaiderH8r
04-15-2008, 02:07 PM
I swear for people who give such long responses I think you read little. I never said PROTECTIONIST. It is not Protectionist to demand a fair playing field.

Sure there are consequences. There were consequnces when we went to war with England too. People said the same type of crap (context applicable) as you are now. We managed to drag our own slaves over though as we fought against tyranny and oppression from the King. And now we can afford to keep them in their native countries so it looks like nothing bad is really happening.

You guys are like Libs ready to always take what someone says to the extreme and then try to make your point. China WOULD hurt bad if we shut them off. Don't kid yourself, we are still the big kid on the block. Our leaders are too ****ing greedy not to be.

Who says I want to do anything with North Korea? WTF do I care about them and why should I? Are our troops on their border or are their troops on ours? I am guessing by all the illegals crossing our borders everyday that it is the former.

But hey, we will do business with China who keeps North Korea employed more or less so they can continue the alleged threat that causes us to keep thousands of our kids on their border.

Demand all you want. What actions do you propose to enforce those demands?

stevieray
04-15-2008, 02:40 PM
You mean the inflation we are now importing from China? ROFL


You guys are too much. Slam Rush and you get your panties in a wad.

the only one with their panties bunched is you...it appears you are adopting the victim mentality with ease..

...and slam rush all you want, doesn't hide the fact that you are clueless about exports/imports with China since Clinton.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 02:41 PM
Demand all you want. What actions do you propose to enforce those demands?


Should you have to shut it down you shut it down. That doesn't mean you don't go elsewhere. I know what you are trying to do. You are ready to call me a Protectionist for shutting off trade with China. That would be true if I said to shut off all global trade but that is not what I am saying at all.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 02:43 PM
the only one with their panties bunched is you...it appears you are adopting the victim mentality with ease..

...and slam rush all you want, doesn't hide the fact that you are clueless about exports/imports with China since Clinton.

Right, I'm clueless all right. Our economy is in the tank, jobs are being exported to India and Brazil, everything coming in is Chinese, we are hiring illegals more and more to do work here.

But I am clueless I know. Let's just blame Bubba like we do for everything else.

Nevermind our $ is at all time lows right now as we watch more and more Arab countires buying chunks of America.

The last ones who will ever admit that we sold ourselves out for the quick $ seems to be those who claim to be conservative today.

stevieray
04-15-2008, 02:49 PM
Right, I'm clueless all right. Our economy is in the tank, jobs are being exported to India and Brazil, everything coming in is Chinese, we are hiring illegals more and more to do work here.

But I am clueless I know. Let's just blame Bubba like we do for everything else.

Nevermind our $ is at all time lows right now as we watch more and more Arab countires buying chunks of America.

The last ones who will ever admit that we sold ourselves out for the quick $ seems to be those who claim to be conservative today.

our economy is in the tank because too many people are living out of their means and on credit, and banks sold homes to people who had no damn business in 'owning" them...and just when do you think the infux of illegals began?

this started waaaaaaaaaaaay before Bush took office.

and you are clueless..look it up instead being reduced to a CNN soundbyte....

RaiderH8r
04-15-2008, 02:52 PM
Should you have to shut it down you shut it down. That doesn't mean you don't go elsewhere. I know what you are trying to do. You are ready to call me a Protectionist for shutting off trade with China. That would be true if I said to shut off all global trade but that is not what I am saying at all.

Shutting off trade is a protectionist act, or a trade sanction. Selective protectionism is still protectionism and trade sanctions have even more hostile overtones. Would you also suggest we enlist other nations importing from China to cut their economic ties to serve your goals?

RaiderH8r
04-15-2008, 02:57 PM
Right, I'm clueless all right. Our economy is in the tank, jobs are being exported to India and Brazil, everything coming in is Chinese, we are hiring illegals more and more to do work here.

But I am clueless I know. Let's just blame Bubba like we do for everything else.

Nevermind our $ is at all time lows right now as we watch more and more Arab countires buying chunks of America.

The last ones who will ever admit that we sold ourselves out for the quick $ seems to be those who claim to be conservative today.

So your solution is to further cripple the economy? To reduce the influx of foreign capital? That's absurdity in the highest.

I'll give you a quick hint, there is a measure that could be taken that would be quite effective in addressing the issues you bring up while keeping China as a trading partner that has eluded you and if you knew what the f you were talking about you would have struck on it already. Unfortunately CNN has not used it as a soundbyte and it hasn't shown up on a bumper sticker so it may remain outside of your realm of knowledge.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 02:59 PM
Shutting off trade is a protectionist act, or a trade sanction. Selective protectionism is still protectionism and trade sanctions have even more hostile overtones. Would you also suggest we enlist other nations importing from China to cut their economic ties to serve your goals?

Yes in and of itself. Drinking beer is also not healty, does that mean you are sucidal because you drink alcohol?

I know, you are just scared. Scared they might get mad. Scared it might cost us some in the short term to get out country back.


We will go to war alone and let our kids die because we are bid bad America, but we won't stand alone one trade policy. NO NO NO!

I see no harm in encouraging other countries not to trade with countries that have sever human rights violations.


Here is a thought, maybe if we these people thought that we are for real they might actually change?

But see we dont (we being people such as yourself) want them to change. Why? Cause then you lose your Wally-World discount prices.

So what you are championing is we kiss ass and bend over for a country that treats their people like shit so we can ensure low cost crap.

Yep , that is the modern-day Repub at his finest.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 03:03 PM
So your solution is to further cripple the economy? To reduce the influx of foreign capital? That's absurdity in the highest.

I'll give you a quick hint, there is a measure that could be taken that would be quite effective in addressing the issues you bring up while keeping China as a trading partner that has eluded you and if you knew what the f you were talking about you would have struck on it already. Unfortunately CNN has not used it as a soundbyte and it hasn't shown up on a bumper sticker so it may remain outside of your realm of knowledge.

Yep further cripple the economy. I mean I guess all the business men here would just close shop and hop in the unemployment lines heh?

I guess the thought of the $10 mil a year guy having to only make $7 mil cause he has to pay American workers, who in turn would pay taxes and spend their earnings in this country is a terrible idea?

Amazing.

stevieray
04-15-2008, 03:06 PM
Yep further cripple the economy. I mean I guess all the business men here would just close shop and hop in the unemployment lines heh?

I guess the thought of the $10 mil a year guy having to only make $7 mil cause he has to pay American workers, who in turn would pay taxes and spend their earnings in this country is a terrible idea?

Amazing.

did you have to work today?

RaiderH8r
04-15-2008, 03:11 PM
Yes in and of itself. Drinking beer is also not healty, does that mean you are sucidal because you drink alcohol?

I know, you are just scared. Scared they might get mad. Scared it might cost us some in the short term to get out country back.


We will go to war alone and let our kids die because we are bid bad America, but we won't stand alone one trade policy. NO NO NO!

I see no harm in encouraging other countries not to trade with countries that have sever human rights violations.


Here is a thought, maybe if we these people thought that we are for real they might actually change?

But see we dont (we being people such as yourself) want them to change. Why? Cause then you lose your Wally-World discount prices.

So what you are championing is we kiss ass and bend over for a country that treats their people like shit so we can ensure low cost crap.

Yep , that is the modern-day Repub at his finest.

WTF are you on? Beer, suicide, that's some pretty thin metaphor you're skating there.

And yes, the ramifications of your proposals aren't months or years, it's decades. What the fallout of that might be is anyone's guess.

Hey pal, it's not my job that'll go in the shitter. I'll be fine. I'm simply pointing out the many pitfalls you, apparently, are happy to traverse in some effort to "get our country back" whatever that means. What would qualify as having our country back?

As I mentioned, I don't shop at Wal-Mart. Not my style. To listen to you prattle on about the dire straits of the current economy and then propose a trading war with one of our largest trading partners and begin divvying up the lines between us and them you're just laying track for another cold war. But what the hell, there were no human rights abuses during the Cold War were there?

RaiderH8r
04-15-2008, 03:16 PM
Yep further cripple the economy. I mean I guess all the business men here would just close shop and hop in the unemployment lines heh?

I guess the thought of the $10 mil a year guy having to only make $7 mil cause he has to pay American workers, who in turn would pay taxes and spend their earnings in this country is a terrible idea?

Amazing.

Well, if you're alright with that. It's generally understood that the moneyed interests hunker down in the financial fort in tough times and weather the storm while it is the "American worker" who hits the bread line. I'm trying to figure out who you're pulling for here.

banyon
04-15-2008, 04:09 PM
did you have to work today?

YEEEAHHH! STEVIERAY BUSTS ANOTHER ONE! YOU CAN'T FIGHT THE WORK POLICE. NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO POST IN THIS FORUM FROM 8AM-5PM EXCEPT HIM!!! YOU WILL BE REPORTED TO THE AUTHORITIES!

petegz28
04-15-2008, 04:14 PM
our economy is in the tank because too many people are living out of their means and on credit, and banks sold homes to people who had no damn business in 'owning" them...and just when do you think the infux of illegals began?

this started waaaaaaaaaaaay before Bush took office.

and you are clueless..look it up instead being reduced to a CNN soundbyte....

wow I can't recall blaming Bush for the illegals? Doing nothing about them sure.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 04:19 PM
Well, if you're alright with that. It's generally understood that the moneyed interests hunker down in the financial fort in tough times and weather the storm while it is the "American worker" who hits the bread line. I'm trying to figure out who you're pulling for here.

I am pulling for the American who busts his ass everyday, sacrifices time away from his family and is loyal to his employer.

The more we shell out jobs the more we take $ out of the economy and the more we need cheaper goods. It is a vicious circle that "the man" started.

I am not religous but if I were I would say the $ is the work of the devil.


Somehwere the executive leadership of this country allowed it to become cool to buy other than American.

Then again though if people bought American I would go without my daily chuckle of seeing tons of Japanese cars covered in American flags. :)

stevieray
04-15-2008, 05:23 PM
YEEEAHHH! STEVIERAY BUSTS ANOTHER ONE! YOU CAN'T FIGHT THE WORK POLICE. NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO POST IN THIS FORUM FROM 8AM-5PM EXCEPT HIM!!! YOU WILL BE REPORTED TO THE AUTHORITIES!

No wonder you ended up in the great metropolis of Dodge City.

Brock
04-15-2008, 05:26 PM
No wonder you ended up in the great metropolis of Dodge City.

ROFL Hey, illegal meat-cutters need prosecution too.

stevieray
04-15-2008, 05:29 PM
ROFL Hey, illegal meat-cutters need prosecution too.

ROFL

Guru
04-15-2008, 07:49 PM
Damn I miss CPiggy.

Saggysack
04-16-2008, 04:48 AM
I took a pay cut to get courtroom experience. Plenty of criminals out here. Do you ever get tired of judging people?

Don't worry, I'll be back in a couple of years to eastern Kansas and make 3-10x more than you thought about making. I'm sorry I'm young and didn't waste my life yet to built it around a fake Elvis identity, some apparently unmemorable artwork, and banging my hyper-mundanely average wife.

Clearly, you're much better than me.

Damn. ROFL

banyon
04-16-2008, 07:16 AM
No wonder you ended up in the great metropolis of Dodge City.

Just curious, you claim to be religious, so do you have to repeatedly ask for forgiveness for all of the hateful barbs you pass out around here, or do you think God won't know about it since it's on the internet?

Logical
04-16-2008, 08:17 AM
Just curious, you claim to be religious, so do you have to repeatedly ask for forgiveness for all of the hateful barbs you pass out around here, or do you think God won't know about it since it's on the internet?
God called Kings' X on the internet, right Cleveland Bronco? (Loves to tell people to get f*cked).

RaiderH8r
04-16-2008, 08:55 AM
I am pulling for the American who busts his ass everyday, sacrifices time away from his family and is loyal to his employer.

The more we shell out jobs the more we take $ out of the economy and the more we need cheaper goods. It is a vicious circle that "the man" started.

I am not religous but if I were I would say the $ is the work of the devil.


Somehwere the executive leadership of this country allowed it to become cool to buy other than American.

Then again though if people bought American I would go without my daily chuckle of seeing tons of Japanese cars covered in American flags. :)

That's cute rhetoric but, ultimately, the CEO of Exxon is an American who busts his ass every day, sacrifices time away from his family, and is loyal to his employer (shareholders). Somehow I don't think you had him in mind, but I could be wrong. Please correct me if that is so.

Shell out jobs? I support manufacturing, I support resource extraction and refinement, I support a production economy. I did not, nor do I support or agree with those who have turned the US into a consumption economy. Alas, despite my best efforts, that is what has happened. Resource extraction and export brings in vast amounts of money, through royalties paid, taxes paid, employment etc. Employment in the resource industry is one of the only areas, due to the exodus of manufacturing (for a variety of reasons, tax policy, regulation, etc.) where a high school diploma can still get you paid over $50K/yr, allow for home ownership and the ability to send children to college. A production economy is always more sound than a consumption economy. If you make something that is needed then others give their money to you instead of you giving your money to others (global trade).

$ is the work of the debbil? Absurd. In lieu of money you would be forced to seek out the baker and trade whatever service you can provide in trade for bread. Money expedites the process, trade for goods and services will always exist in some form.

Perhaps if Detroit had heeded the wishes of the consumer they wouldn't have gotten their asses kicked for 20+ years. When Congress debated and passed the Clean Air Act Detroit automakers, and their unions, hired 10,000 lawyers to fight it. Japanese auto makers hired 10,000 engineers to comply with it and build a better product in the process.

Chief Henry
04-16-2008, 09:32 AM
That's cute rhetoric but, ultimately, the CEO of Exxon is an American who busts his ass every day, sacrifices time away from his family, and is loyal to his employer (shareholders). Somehow I don't think you had him in mind, but I could be wrong. Please correct me if that is so.

Shell out jobs? I support manufacturing, I support resource extraction and refinement, I support a production economy. I did not, nor do I support or agree with those who have turned the US into a consumption economy. Alas, despite my best efforts, that is what has happened. Resource extraction and export brings in vast amounts of money, through royalties paid, taxes paid, employment etc. Employment in the resource industry is one of the only areas, due to the exodus of manufacturing (for a variety of reasons, tax policy, regulation, etc.) where a high school diploma can still get you paid over $50K/yr, allow for home ownership and the ability to send children to college. A production economy is always more sound than a consumption economy. If you make something that is needed then others give their money to you instead of you giving your money to others (global trade).

$ is the work of the debbil? Absurd. In lieu of money you would be forced to seek out the baker and trade whatever service you can provide in trade for bread. Money expedites the process, trade for goods and services will always exist in some form.

Perhaps if Detroit had heeded the wishes of the consumer they wouldn't have gotten their asses kicked for 20+ years. When Congress debated and passed the Clean Air Act Detroit automakers, and their unions, hired 10,000 lawyers to fight it. Japanese auto makers hired 10,000 engineers to comply with it and build a better product in the process.

Outstanding

petegz28
04-16-2008, 11:45 PM
That's cute rhetoric but, ultimately, the CEO of Exxon is an American who busts his ass every day, sacrifices time away from his family, and is loyal to his employer (shareholders). Somehow I don't think you had him in mind, but I could be wrong. Please correct me if that is so.

Shell out jobs? I support manufacturing, I support resource extraction and refinement, I support a production economy. I did not, nor do I support or agree with those who have turned the US into a consumption economy. Alas, despite my best efforts, that is what has happened. Resource extraction and export brings in vast amounts of money, through royalties paid, taxes paid, employment etc. Employment in the resource industry is one of the only areas, due to the exodus of manufacturing (for a variety of reasons, tax policy, regulation, etc.) where a high school diploma can still get you paid over $50K/yr, allow for home ownership and the ability to send children to college. A production economy is always more sound than a consumption economy. If you make something that is needed then others give their money to you instead of you giving your money to others (global trade).

$ is the work of the debbil? Absurd. In lieu of money you would be forced to seek out the baker and trade whatever service you can provide in trade for bread. Money expedites the process, trade for goods and services will always exist in some form.

Perhaps if Detroit had heeded the wishes of the consumer they wouldn't have gotten their asses kicked for 20+ years. When Congress debated and passed the Clean Air Act Detroit automakers, and their unions, hired 10,000 lawyers to fight it. Japanese auto makers hired 10,000 engineers to comply with it and build a better product in the process.


Yeah and money also makes a lot of good people do a lot of bad things.

Nice effort though.

Saggysack
04-17-2008, 04:57 AM
Rex Tillerson work hard? ROFL

You do the work for him. You pump the gas. He takes the 5k per hr in compensation.

Bearcat2005
04-18-2008, 06:54 PM
I used to listen to this guy all the time. I finally got away from the political crap cause that is just what it is.

So I turn on the radio today only to hear Rush whining about Obama and Hillary. I had to stop myself and say wait a sec...this guy has slammed McCain left and right for the last how may years?

Now all the sudden he is ok?

Just using true conservative logic I cannot see how Rush differenciates McCain from Obama and Hillary all of the sudden considering he has spent the better part of the last 7 years slamming him and calling him a Lib!

I just can't stand Rush's ego, he is under the assumption that the conservative movement had more to do with him than the principles it stood for.

Guru
04-18-2008, 07:07 PM
This thread is still going? Get over it.

penchief
04-19-2008, 07:45 PM
That's cute rhetoric but, ultimately, the CEO of Exxon is an American who busts his ass every day, sacrifices time away from his family, and is loyal to his employer (shareholders). Somehow I don't think you had him in mind, but I could be wrong. Please correct me if that is so.

Shell out jobs? I support manufacturing, I support resource extraction and refinement, I support a production economy. I did not, nor do I support or agree with those who have turned the US into a consumption economy. Alas, despite my best efforts, that is what has happened. Resource extraction and export brings in vast amounts of money, through royalties paid, taxes paid, employment etc. Employment in the resource industry is one of the only areas, due to the exodus of manufacturing (for a variety of reasons, tax policy, regulation, etc.) where a high school diploma can still get you paid over $50K/yr, allow for home ownership and the ability to send children to college. A production economy is always more sound than a consumption economy. If you make something that is needed then others give their money to you instead of you giving your money to others (global trade).

$ is the work of the debbil? Absurd. In lieu of money you would be forced to seek out the baker and trade whatever service you can provide in trade for bread. Money expedites the process, trade for goods and services will always exist in some form.

Perhaps if Detroit had heeded the wishes of the consumer they wouldn't have gotten their asses kicked for 20+ years. When Congress debated and passed the Clean Air Act Detroit automakers, and their unions, hired 10,000 lawyers to fight it. Japanese auto makers hired 10,000 engineers to comply with it and build a better product in the process.

Yeah, right. Like when phone companies put phony charges on your bill in hopes that you don't catch it?

The CEO of Exxon-Mobile is no different than any other Wall Street executive. He/she is trying to increase stock prices and the profit margin of the company by HOOK OR CROOK. The phony bottom line is ALL that matters because the "paper lion" is the only end result that matters to unpatriotic greed mongers. It's all about the ideal of funny money over real currency (i.e. Enron currency over the currency of production).

Ultra Peanut
04-19-2008, 07:51 PM
Banyon: DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN!

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/4/2/3/423aa1e0069276971bda4b8c85ce5832.gif

Calcountry
04-21-2008, 05:58 PM
The only thing worse than the I am leaving threads is the this is why I hate thie BB posts. If you hate the BB or a poster use iggy, heck I think you can even set it up so you don't see certain forums. If all else fails you can delete the link to ChiefsPlanet.Even better, just stay the fug away from this shit. I have cut my posting WAYYYYYYYYYYY down and I find that peace and tranquility are not far behind.