The Limbaugh Problem

[dewey316]

What hasnt been said (and possibly because many fail to see it) is that if the democrats are successful in making Limbaugh a flash point to reassert some popular control, it is primarily the failure of the republican party.

To what end though? The 2 year elections coming up? If (I'll use if there) their economic policy fails, the Dem's own it, and will likely lose a LOT of seats for that. They already have the Presidency, what is the end-game of them making Limbaugh a topic of discussion right now. Other than further polarization (which is something Obama, Pellosi, et al, seem to embrace), I don't see what the current administration has to gain by this. My only guess is, they are trying to use this as a smoke screen. Put some controversy on the front page, and try to take the press away from the spending bill, the new $3T+ budget, and who knows what other policy changes.

[got tonkaed]

even as a smoke screen, if it was effective in helping to push back a coherent gop message, i would assume many would consider it a success. The point is, at the moment, even if plans dont go to ideal scenarios or even all that great scenarios the dems will likely still have a fair amount of control. Its hard to (even after 2 years) change up things all that much if there isnt a different vision that emerges. Granted its not impossible for Rush to be apart of that, but he seemingly is really a niche guy at best.

[mpjh]

Yes, and the democrats would love to see that niche firmly in control of the republicans. That virtually guarantees democrat victories.

[dewey316]

Yes, and the democrats would love to see that niche firmly in control of the republicans. That virtually guarantees democrat victories.

I think what they are really trying to do, is paint the entire GOP with the brush of a radio personality. I honestly think it is going to back-fire on them. The executive branch, actualy engaging, even if indirectly, in this dialog with someone who is mearly a radio persona, would seem to be lending creadit to Rush. If you want to find the stuff that most conservatives will rally behind, it is government overstepping their bounds (such as trying to get involved in what radio personalities say), and over spending. So far, all I see, is the Dem's doing a grand job, of giving conservatives several great rallying points.

[got tonkaed]

Yes, and the democrats would love to see that niche firmly in control of the republicans. That virtually guarantees democrat victories.

I think what they are really trying to do, is paint the entire GOP with the brush of a radio personality. I honestly think it is going to back-fire on them. The executive branch, actualy engaging, even if indirectly, in this dialog with someone who is mearly a radio persona, would seem to be lending creadit to Rush. If you want to find the stuff that most conservatives will rally behind, it is government overstepping their bounds (such as trying to get involved in what radio personalities say), and over spending. So far, all I see, is the Dem's doing a grand job, of giving conservatives several great rallying points.

its still nothing of substance. You tell me that gov is getting to involved and overstepping your bounds, i ask for economic and foreign policy plans. You tell me the government is doing too much, and i walk away with the knowledge that the republican base still hasnt regained its footing.

[dewey316]

Are you wanting me to get into what I think we should do to get the economy fixed? I can sure do that, but I didn't think this thread was the place. I was mearly commenting on the Limbaugh/Obama shouting match.

[got tonkaed]

Are you wanting me to get into what I think we should do to get the economy fixed? I can sure do that, but I didn't think this thread was the place. I was mearly commenting on the Limbaugh/Obama shouting match.

its just a simple observation. I dont think a real coherent policy exists within the GOP at the moment, and because of the current head of state, the dems dont actually need one. I wouldnt expect any lay person to really be able to coherently lay outs such a plan, as plans of such a nature require teams of individuals usually.

The point is, i dont see anything from the GOP that says hey this is the better option. When your rhetoric is losing to a party with a currently greater capacity to mobilize, you need to have more substance. Until that substance appears, its dark times for the GOP and conservatives alike.

[Napoleon Ier]

So basically, we all agree Obama's wrong and probably a socialist, right?

[Snorri1234]

So basically, we all agree Obama's wrong and probably a socialist, right?

EVEN WORSE! HE'S A DIRTY COMMIE! LOOK AT HIM QUIETLY CONTEMPLATING HOW TO TURN THE COUNTRY INTO THE USSA!



I SAID LOOK AT HIM!

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm tired of explaining this to you, Player and the other mongoloids who think exposure to the occasional shitty pieces of dumbed-down to the point infantile simplicity news bulletins make you experts on political philosophy: socialism and communism are the same ideology.

[InkL0sed]

A square is not the same as a rectangle.

[Snorri1234]

I'm tired of explaining this to you, Player and the other mongoloids who think exposure to the occasional shitty pieces of dumbed-down to the point infantile simplicity news bulletins make you experts on political philosophy: socialism and communism are the same ideology.

And I'm pretty tired of beating you over the head with actual facts that prove it isn't so. I know you are a retard nappy, but even a retard would've grapsed the point now.

Unless you want to explain why, even though Europe and pretty much any other western nation is far more socialist that the United States of Awesome, socialism is the same as communism when all other rational people see it isn't actually so. If you can dismiss the Red Scare for one minute and actually think about the world without your magic classes which excuse letting people rot on the street for being poor you have an ear here.


If not, just spout your hatred and bullshit on some French Supremacist website instead of bothering us.

[Napoleon Ier]

But dollar spent by the US government received from bond purchasers is the same thing as one spent instead directly into the economy, eradicating the bureaucratic middleman. N'est-ce-pas?

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm tired of explaining this to you, Player and the other mongoloids who think exposure to the occasional shitty pieces of dumbed-down to the point infantile simplicity news bulletins make you experts on political philosophy: socialism and communism are the same ideology.

And I'm pretty tired of beating you over the head with actual facts that prove it isn't so. I know you are a retard nappy, but even a retard would've grapsed the point now.

Unless you want to explain why, even though Europe and pretty much any other western nation is far more socialist that the United States of Awesome, socialism is the same as communism when all other rational people see it isn't actually so. If you can dismiss the Red Scare for one minute and actually think about the world without your magic classes which excuse letting people rot on the street for being poor you have an ear here.


If not, just spout your hatred and bullshit on some French Supremacist website instead of bothering us.

Yeah... How drunk are you exactly?

[Snorri1234]

I'm tired of explaining this to you, Player and the other mongoloids who think exposure to the occasional shitty pieces of dumbed-down to the point infantile simplicity news bulletins make you experts on political philosophy: socialism and communism are the same ideology.

And I'm pretty tired of beating you over the head with actual facts that prove it isn't so. I know you are a retard nappy, but even a retard would've grapsed the point now.

Unless you want to explain why, even though Europe and pretty much any other western nation is far more socialist that the United States of Awesome, socialism is the same as communism when all other rational people see it isn't actually so. If you can dismiss the Red Scare for one minute and actually think about the world without your magic classes which excuse letting people rot on the street for being poor you have an ear here.


If not, just spout your hatred and bullshit on some French Supremacist website instead of bothering us.

Yeah... How drunk are you exactly?

Somewhere between "pretty drunk" and "i wonder if pushing your buttons works every time".

Still, doesn't make you less of an idiot.

[Snorri1234]

N'est-ce-pas?

OOOOH I USE TEH FOREIGN LANGUAGES TO MAKE ME APPEAR SMARTER!


Ach, hou toch je bek, jij stinkende hoerenzoon. Iedereen kan frans lezen en spreken als ze t ooit geleerd hebben op school.

[MeDeFe]

N'est-ce-pas?

OOOOH I USE TEH FOREIGN LANGUAGES TO MAKE ME APPEAR SMARTER!


Ach, hou toch je bek, jij stinkende hoerenzoon. Iedereen kan frans lezen en spreken als ze t ooit geleerd hebben op school.

Joo kyllä.

[Napoleon Ier]

N'est-ce-pas?

OOOOH I USE TEH FOREIGN LANGUAGES TO MAKE ME APPEAR SMARTER!


Ach, hou toch je bek, jij stinkende hoerenzoon. Iedereen kan frans lezen en spreken als ze t ooit geleerd hebben op school.

Yes. Clearly we didn't geleerd op school much else, did we?

[Napoleon Ier]

Listen, when you sober up, there's some good introductions to the topic of Marxism I'd recommend by Eric Hobsbawm, then I suggest you get more seriously involved with Leszek Kolakowski.

As a brief sketch though, you should understand that essentially, socialism and communism aren't ideologies so much as stages in historical development posited by Marx as part of the dialectic. They're not strictly ideologies, and when referred to as such, certainly aren't different in any way.

Maybe when you've read a little more and are more intellectually mature we can discuss this at greater length, eh?

[b.k. barunt]

Morde manubrium meum.


Honibaz

[Snorri1234]

N'est-ce-pas?

OOOOH I USE TEH FOREIGN LANGUAGES TO MAKE ME APPEAR SMARTER!


Ach, hou toch je bek, jij stinkende hoerenzoon. Iedereen kan frans lezen en spreken als ze t ooit geleerd hebben op school.

Yes. Clearly we didn't geleerd op school much else, did we?

Woops, Bablefish or something?

[Snorri1234]

Listen, when you sober up, there's some good introductions to the topic of Marxism I'd recommend by Eric Hobsbawm, then I suggest you get more seriously involved with Leszek Kolakowski.

f*ck em.

As a brief sketch though, you should understand that essentially, socialism and communism aren't ideologies so much as stages in historical development posited by Marx as part of the dialectic. They're not strictly ideologies, and when referred to as such, certainly aren't different in any way.

And I think you need to seriously get this through your thick skull.

Ofcourse, when viewed from a Marxists perspective socialism and communism are merely stages. But that doesn't matter. Because just like the fact that we associate "left-wing" with progressive politics and "right wing" with conservative politics, the terms have changed and picked up new meanings. Hell, even between countries two terms can have radically different meanings. When I use Liberal in my country I mean free-market lovers who are very much opposed to any type of socialism, but yet when an US-citizen reads the same thing they think it's about socially progressive socialists who want more government interference.


Next time you try to use your "I AM TEH BOOKSMART"-bullshit you should think about actual discussions and debates. It's very cool and all that you try to use socialism and communism in their proper context from old books, but it makes you look like an idiot in modern debates. Your smart-ass remarks don't actually mean shit. They're trying to derail a debate between two sides by saying "OMG YOU SHOULD LIKE READ THIS BOOK WHICH SHOWS YOUR TERM IS TOTALLY WRONGZORS" when everyone else knows what the term means.


Just shut the f*ck up about this and actually discuss the fucking topic.

Maybe when you've read a little more and are more intellectually mature we can discuss this at greater length, eh?

How very mature.

[Napoleon Ier]

Boooring.

More futile evasive action.

The terms are what they are, and the people who use them incorrectly are just wrong. It isn't a semantic issue that's been confused in the Anglo-Saxon world, no matter how hard you try to sugar-coat it as such: it's technical terminology the "people in the US" who don't understand it are plain old vanilla-flavored stupid.

[Snorri1234]

Boooring.

More futile evasive action.

The terms are what they are, and the people who use them incorrectly are just wrong. It isn't a semantic issue that's been confused in the Anglo-Saxon world, no matter how hard you try to sugar-coat it as such: it's technical terminology the "people in the US" who don't understand it are plain old vanilla-flavored stupid.

Ah, brilliant approach. The term is used wrongly by the majority of the people in the world. It doesn't matter that everyone does it, they are all wrong. Even all politicians in the world are wrong. Silly buggers who say conservatism is "right-wing". Don't they understand that historically the right was progressive?

Sure, everyone else is totally wrong and you are right Nappers.

[Napoleon Ier]

Boooring.

More futile evasive action.

The terms are what they are, and the people who use them incorrectly are just wrong. It isn't a semantic issue that's been confused in the Anglo-Saxon world, no matter how hard you try to sugar-coat it as such: it's technical terminology the "people in the US" who don't understand it are plain old vanilla-flavored stupid.

Ah, brilliant approach. The term is used wrongly by the majority of the people in the world. It doesn't matter that everyone does it, they are all wrong. Even all politicians in the world are wrong. Silly buggers who say conservatism is "right-wing". Don't they understand that historically the right was progressive?

Sure, everyone else is totally wrong and you are right Nappers.

Snorri, most people use the word velocity incorrectly these days. Does the fact lots of them do it make them right? No. And a simple glance through any appropriate manual will tell you so.

As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism; a broad group of economic and political philosophies that draw on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.