It is funny to consider that Obama and his crew have boycotted Fox News, so the network goes for interviews with folks like Rush. What a goof up for the idiots in the White House. I'd love to see the ratings on this.
And Fox had more with Rush than they put on TV. You can see that here:
Is there any doubt that Rush (gas-bag) Limbaugh is the intellectual spokesman for the Republican Party?
I wonder if Fox paid him for his appearance with some Oxy?
You just gotta love those arch-con Reps. If you don't love 'em... you better fear 'em. You never know which one of them is carrying concealed and will blow you away without the slightest provocation.
It's not the silly things you say that are simply wrong that bothers me, it's the things that you believe to be absolutely true that scare the daylights out of me.
It's not the silly things you say that are simply wrong that bothers me, it's the things that you believe to be absolutely true that scare the daylights out of me.
Am I to infer from this vague response that you did watch the entire interview?
Please identify which of the three parts contained the statements from Rush which you disagreed with the most, and why you disagreed.
Indicate which video (1, 2 or 3) and the minute of the interview where those statements occurred.
Am I to infer from this vague response that you did watch the entire interview?
Please identify which of the three parts contained the statements from Rush which you disagreed with the most, and why you disagreed.
Indicate which video (1, 2 or 3) and the minute of the interview where those statements occurred.
Infer what you wish. I don't have the time or the interest to discuss Rush Limbaugh. I concede that he is the intellectual spokesperson of the Republican Party and he has millions of right-wing whack-jobs who think he is god... along with at least 12,000 of them in this venue.
Trying to combat the ignorance here is a losing battle and is pointless to try. If I really thought you arch-cons were a true political force, I might do it, but you are mostly a bunch of scared, frustrated, and confused people... mostly in the Southern states. And besides, it seems you folks enjoy fighting among yourselves seeing who is "conservative enough" to be a "real" Republican that I doubt you can mount a serious political campaign to attract a majority of the voters in the electoral-heavy states. I'm sure you can win Alabama and South Carolina... but so what? No one with half a brain would live there anyway!
Lets Face it, When it comes to the Military and really caring, the guy is a loser.
Went to Dover to "Respect the remains of the individuals and thier families, Only one family wanted this photo session.
Why? Because it was a "Sick Request" for a Photo OP!!! and they all knew it.
Better off handing out Trick or Treat Candy.
ps. Al, dont even respond to this, Unless you have laced up a pair of Boots in the middle of the night, or experienced any of this. Just leave it alone.
This Picture Tells the Real Story of his Purpose!!!!
Last edited by dmiller90 : 11-02-2009 at 08:48 AM.
Because it was a "Sick Request" for a Photo OP!!! and they all knew it.
ps. Al, dont even respond to this, Unless you have laced up a pair of Boots in the middle of the night, or experienced any of this. Just leave it alone.
I don't take orders from you, Mr. Miller. I have as much right to respond to any post here as I wish. If that bothers you, take it up with the list owner.
But before you do that, answer me this. Why is it to arch-conservatives like you that military life is so cheap? Tell me how many caskets you folks are willing to bring home so that you can keep your (collective) "We're the most powerful nation on earth" hard-on?
Is Iraq and Afg. worth 100,000 dead? Is it worth 5,000 dead? What number do you put on it. If you (god forbid) were commander in chief, considering that (to you) military lives are expendable in two wars with no possibility of victory, how many trips to Dover are YOU willing to make?
Tell me what the 69,000 who died in Vietnam died for? Then tell me what the young men and women who are in the middle East now are going to die for?
You are entitled to your opinion and the expression of it. That is one of the differences between arch-cons like you and liberals like myself.
So explain to me why a military leader who takes time in reviewing policy before committing tens of thousands of our military to possible death and dismemberment is a bad leader?
As an ex-military person I would have thought you would hold military life just a but more precious. It seems that our current President is doing/showing that... and for some reason that simply confounds you.
If I live to be a hundred and one I will never understand the mindset of you arch-conservatives. How many military funerals do you have to see on TV until you understand that if we were going to win, we would have by now?
When does it dawn on you that, like Vietnam, our military leaders (especially Patreus and McCrystal) simply don't know what they are doing and as a result young military personal will continue to stream into Dover in flag-draped coffins.
I don't take orders from you, Mr. Miller. I have as much right to respond to any post here as I wish. If that bothers you, take it up with the list owner.
But before you do that, answer me this. Why is it to arch-conservatives like you that military life is so cheap? Tell me how many caskets you folks are willing to bring home so that you can keep your (collective) "We're the most powerful nation on earth" hard-on?
Is Iraq and Afg. worth 100,000 dead? Is it worth 5,000 dead? What number do you put on it. If you (god forbid) were commander in chief, considering that (to you) military lives are expendable in two wars with no possibility of victory, how many trips to Dover are YOU willing to make?
Tell me what the 69,000 who died in Vietnam died for? Then tell me what the young men and women who are in the middle East now are going to die for?
You are entitled to your opinion and the expression of it. That is one of the differences between arch-cons like you and liberals like myself.
So explain to me why a military leader who takes time in reviewing policy before committing tens of thousands of our military to possible death and dismemberment is a bad leader?
As an ex-military person I would have thought you would hold military life just a but more precious. It seems that our current President is doing/showing that... and for some reason that simply confounds you.
If I live to be a hundred and one I will never understand the mindset of you arch-conservatives. How many military funerals do you have to see on TV until you understand that if we were going to win, we would have by now?
When does it dawn on you that, like Vietnam, our military leaders (especially Patreus and McCrystal) simply don't know what they are doing and as a result young military personal will continue to stream into Dover in flag-draped coffins.
When do you folks "get it?"
Actually I know the answer.
If the past is prologue... never.
Al
According to Pelosi, Reid and the ilk and of course the Constitution, Obama is the Commander in Chief. The buck stops on his doorstep. So if you are going to condemn someone for our military action or inaction, you have to put Obama at the top of the list.
According to Pelosi, Reid and the ilk and of course the Constitution, Obama is the Commander in Chief. The buck stops on his doorstep. So if you are going to condemn someone for our military action or inaction, you have to put Obama at the top of the list.
That is exactly right. In the end these are now Obama's wars. He has had more than enough time to decide to bring the troops home, and he hasn't. Heck, he's had enough time to decide AND then put them on planes and bring them home.
I guess Al and his liberal friends will have to find a more liberal Presidential candidate for 2012, this guy just can't get it done.
According to Pelosi, Reid and the ilk and of course the Constitution, Obama is the Commander in Chief. The buck stops on his doorstep. So if you are going to condemn someone for our military action or inaction, you have to put Obama at the top of the list.
You are 100% correct. We dumped Lyndon Johnson in 1968 for Nixon (whom I supported... too young to vote... by one month) and pretty much abandoned Carter in 1980 for Reagan (whom I did not vote for then, but did in '84.)
The problem for you neo-con Reps is that you will have to put up a candidate that can appeal to disaffected liberals... like a Nixon or a Reagan or a Bush... but you don't have one that the arch-cons of your ilk will support. War or no war, we will stick with Obama if given a choice of Palin or Huckabilly or some other right-wing whack-job you come up with.
You can't win without "us." There are not enough pistol-packing arch-cons + neo-cons in the country to win without the moderates. We can win without you (which we did) but you Reps. can't win without us.... or at least a few of us... and since you guys are going to support the war for another 20 years... and you never appeal to minorities... there is no way we are going to support one of your guys.
You can't win without "us." There are not enough pistol-packing arch-cons + neo-cons in the country to win without the moderates. We can win without you (which we did) but you Reps. can't win without us.... or at least a few of us...
Another liberal who thinks he's a moderate.
It's shocking to think that any liberals actually admit that they are liberals, but I suppose those who do believe that they take their socialism in moderation. They don't, but they like to believe it.
[quote=al3;200166]I don't take orders from you, Mr. Miller. I have as much right to respond to any post here as I wish. If that bothers you, take it up with the list owner.
But before you do that, answer me this. Why is it to arch-conservatives like you that military life is so cheap? Tell me how many caskets you folks are willing to bring home so that you can keep your (collective) "We're the most powerful nation on earth" hard-on?
Is Iraq and Afg. worth 100,000 dead? Is it worth 5,000 dead? What number do you put on it. If you (god forbid) were commander in chief, considering that (to you) military lives are expendable in two wars with no possibility of victory, how many trips to Dover are YOU willing to make?
Tell me what the 69,000 who died in Vietnam died for? Then tell me what the young men and women who are in the middle East now are going to die for?
You are entitled to your opinion and the expression of it. That is one of the differences between arch-cons like you and liberals like myself.
So explain to me why a military leader who takes time in reviewing policy before committing tens of thousands of our military to possible death and dismemberment is a bad leader?
As an ex-military person I would have thought you would hold military life just a but more precious. It seems that our current President is doing/showing that... and for some reason that simply confounds you.
If I live to be a hundred and one I will never understand the mindset of you arch-conservatives. How many military funerals do you have to see on TV until you understand that if we were going to win, we would have by now?
When does it dawn on you that, like Vietnam, our military leaders (especially Patreus and McCrystal) simply don't know what they are doing and as a result young military personal will continue to stream into Dover in flag-draped coffins.
When do you folks "get it?"
Actually I know the answer.
If the past is prologue... never.
Al[/quote
See you missed the point again, always political and name calling with you. The point was that is a very private and respected moment for families of lost individuals.
My point was, quit showing his "Lack of Respect" to use this as a Photo Op, due to his obvious problems with The War, remember? the one he said this country should be focused on?
Do what he has got to do, but dont allow the cameras for his own personal gain for this.
That is exactly right. In the end these are now Obama's wars. He has had more than enough time to decide to bring the troops home, and he hasn't. Heck, he's had enough time to decide AND then put them on planes and bring them home.
!
Not to forget as well that he sent an additional 30,000 over to Afg last winter. His decision , not Bush's. So he has already moved away from the "bring them home" goal. If he needed to do that to protect the troops on the ground while finalizing the strategy, okay, I can give a free one and maybe that makes sense. Now what? Can't do that twice without it looking like a build-up for the long haul. I willing to give him a free one, but he has played that card already.
------------------------------------ Spending Our Way to Prosperity
Rush Limbaugh on Fox News Sunday
Linear Mode
