Why talk radio wants a democrat to win in 08

[gene430]

Rush and his backup singers (Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Ingram, etc.) have a full on frontal assault on John McCain. Why?

http://www.politibyte.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=55

[preservanation]

To assume that Conservative talk-show host oppose McCain because they want to boost their ratings is ridiculous.
There are some very fundamental differences all conservatives have with McCain, his positions and legislation.
To think that this is all some insidious conspiracy to increase ratings is nothing short of sophomoric rambling.
The depth of some people's ignorance about who conservatives are, what they believe, and what they stand for is stunning.

It would behove those who oppose conservatism to at least learn what it is.

[Elrathin]

There are some very fundamental differences all conservatives have with McCain, his positions and legislation.


Conservatives themselves have very fundamental differences with each other.

[preservanation]

Like what, El?

[Elrathin]

Like what, El?


Like whether or not to support Social Security and Welfare. I have seen many conservatives stuck on that one. Name one presidential candidate that promises to end all Socialistic programs Preservation. Name one conservatives poliutician in office today that has tried to get rid of ALL Socialistic programs.

Gay Marriage, while many are against it, there are conservatives that believe it is wrong, but don't believe the states should have the right to make it illegal.

You conservatives are not so locked in on your beliefs and that is a fundamental reason you guys are split on McCain. Some want to support him and some don't.

[preservanation]

Like whether or not to support Social Security and Welfare. I have seen many conservatives stuck on that one. Name one presidential candidate that promises to end all Socialistic programs Preservation. Name one conservatives poliutician in office today that has tried to get rid of ALL Socialistic programs.
It is interesting that you admit ss and welfare are socialist systems.
They illustrate exactly why once socialist gov programs are installed they are impossible to extricate. This is the reality we face. The only thing we can do is to reduce people' dependency on the gov.

This is a fear with all future socialist proposals such as Hillary care.
There in no desire to eliminate help for those who need it. I would hope we could get to the point where community charity could cover the need.
I supported privatising parts of SS this would have taken some of the funds out of the hands of the thieving politicians, and put it back in control of the individual. IMO, Bush backed down too quick.
As you know Bush is not considered a rock-ribbed Conservative either.



McCain is a different issue than the one you asked about, however.
Are you familiar with the specific problems conservatives have with McCain?

[gene430]

To assume that Conservative talk-show host oppose McCain because they want to boost their ratings is ridiculous.
There are some very fundamental differences all conservatives have with McCain, his positions and legislation.
To think that this is all some insidious conspiracy to increase ratings is nothing short of sophomoric rambling.
The depth of some people's ignorance about who conservatives are, what they believe, and what they stand for is stunning.

It would behove those who oppose conservatism to at least learn what it is.



OK, explain which conservative principle you believe Hillary or Obama would be better at promoting that John McCain?

[Elrathin]

It is interesting that you admit ss and welfare are socialist systems.
They illustrate exactly why once socialist gov programs are installed they are impossible to extricate. This is the reality we face. The only thing we can do is to reduce people' dependency on the gov.

They are not impossible to eliminate. The simple fact is that hard core conservatives are just a minority and the MAJORITY of people in the U.S. don't want to change it.

This proves my point that there is not just "two" sides conservatives/liberals but a broad range of spectrums. People hate extremes and that is why hard core liberals and hard core conservatives will remain extreme minorities and dwindle down in numbers with the passing years.

There is absoultely nothing wrong with having socialist type programs. Our country has survived with them and it will continue to survive.


I supported privatising parts of SS this would have taken some of the funds out of the hands of the thieving politicians, and put it back in control of the individual.

Ah, but it is still a Socialist program and the fact you supported ANY PART of it shows that you are not as hard lined as you think you are.

[Truth Detector]

To assume that Conservative talk-show host oppose McCain because they want to boost their ratings is ridiculous.
There are some very fundamental differences all conservatives have with McCain, his positions and legislation.
To think that this is all some insidious conspiracy to increase ratings is nothing short of sophomoric rambling.
The depth of some people's ignorance about who conservatives are, what they believe, and what they stand for is stunning.

It would behove those who oppose conservatism to at least learn what it is.


Outstanding response.....nothing more need be stated; sophistry and ignorance defines the opinions from most of those on the left.

[gene430]

To assume that Conservative talk-show host oppose McCain because they want to boost their ratings is ridiculous.
There are some very fundamental differences all conservatives have with McCain, his positions and legislation.
To think that this is all some insidious conspiracy to increase ratings is nothing short of sophomoric rambling.
The depth of some people's ignorance about who conservatives are, what they believe, and what they stand for is stunning.

It would behove those who oppose conservatism to at least learn what it is.


Outstanding response.....nothing more need be stated; sophistry and ignorance defines the opinions from most of those on the left.


Do you not see that talk radio bashing the republican candidate for whatever reason will help the democrats? Do you not see that?

[Truth Detector]

There is absoultely nothing wrong with having socialist type programs. Our country has survived with them and it will continue to survive.

There is EVERYTHING wrong with having Socialist type programs. Arguing that SOME Conservatives are for them as being evidence that they are somehow "good" ideas is itself an absurd premise.

Let's look at what welfare programs have done to eliminate poverty in this country; NOTHING.

Let's look at what the "projects" brought us for housing the poor; rat infested run down cesspools of drugs and crime.

We have been spending outrageous amounts of money in the "war on poverty." I believe the figure bantered about is about $40 TRILLION dollars over the past decades. How has it worked for our society?

Well according to Leftists on this web site and the media, poverty has "increased."

The FACT is this; Government programs and largess that pander to voters only serves to do ONE thing; create a DEPENDENT class of citizens that relies on Government hand outs by politicians who take it from the productive among us to give to the unproductive and use it as a form of control over their electorate.

The societies who have practiced Socialism in the extreme are in decline. The Societies of Europe who bow at the alter to Government largess are attempting to reform these programs because they can no longer continue affording them without destroying their respective economies.

There is not ONE shred of evidence where Government's confiscation of wealth and it's redistribution has benefited the society as a whole. NO nations have taxed themselves into prosperity. It does NOT work.

The formula for success of any nation to assure the prosperity of it's citizens are the following in my opinion and are proven by the historic record; a good education, Conservative Federal fiscal policy focused on the Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government which is primarily the defense of the nation and administration of it's laws; embracing success and hard work, embracing law abiding citizens and promoting the family unit and community involvement.

Once you embrace the notion that society’s ills can be solved through Government interventionism and legislation, you have already become a slave to that Government with little hope of redemption.

History is littered with the good intentions of man gone bad when given sufficient power over his fellow man. Why is it that we are condemned to constantly repeat the past by learning so little from its lessons due to our own ignorance and denial?

[Archasgame5]

I can guarantee you Laura Ingram does not want a Democrat in the White House...

[dgun]

They don't like McCain because in the past he has not been a slave to the party. They also realize, as do I, that all the ass kissing of the Republican base that he has been doing the last few years is just BS to get elected. Once in office, they fear he will turn.

Which he will and should. And don't forget the election of 2000. McCain has a huge score to settle with these jackasses and they are rightfully scared of their day of reckoning.

But too late. lol. McCain is a lock for the Republican nomination and almost a certain victor over either Clinton or Obama.

[PatrickHenry]

McCain is a lock for the Republican nomination and almost a certain victor over either Clinton or Obama.
How do you figure?

I think that stone age militarists like McCain are in for a shock.

We can't afford to garrison the world.

[dgun]

How do you figure?

He wins Florida. He wins Ohio. Everything else falls as per norm.

We can't afford to garrison the world.

Oh I agree. He's not my first choice for President. But to paraphrase a line from the Matrix:

"Do you hear that? It's the sound of inevitability."

[PatrickHenry]

How do you figure?

He wins Florida. He wins Ohio. Everything else falls as per norm.

We can't afford to garrison the world.

Oh I agree. He's not my first choice for President. But to paraphrase a line from the Matrix:

"Do you hear that? It's the sound of inevitability."
I think you will find a lot of disagreement there, dgun.


CNN has this up on their topstories right now: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/20008.matchups.schneider/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
In the CNN poll, Obama leads McCain by 8 points, 52 percent to 44 percent. That's outside the margin of error, meaning that Obama has the lead.

And in the Time poll, Obama leads McCain by 7 points, 48 percent to 41 percent -- a lead also outside of the poll's margin of error of 3 percentage points.

In both polls, Obama looks stronger than Clinton. Why?

[Shintao]

Like what, El?


Fundamental conservative differences.

Conserve & Deserve.
War & peace.
Lies & Truth.
Big & Small.

[dgun]

Two polls this month have asked registered voters nationwide how they would vote if the choice were between McCain and Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Ah yes. But let's not forget the lesson of 2000? This is a nationwide poll.

I think Obama does better than Hillary because he might pick off a couple of southern states. But I still think McCain has the advantage in electoral votes over either.

[preservanation]

Like what, El?


Fundamental conservative differences.

Conserve & Deserve.
War & peace.
Lies & Truth.
Big & Small.

Desert Topping.
Tolstoy Novel.
Woody Allen Movie.
Richard Scary Picture Book...
What do these have to do with anything?

[Shintao]

But too late. lol. McCain is a lock for the Republican nomination and almost a certain victor over either Clinton or Obama.

In your dreams. In the recent Clinton-Obama primary in California there was a shortage of ballots for Democrats, that required bringing in subsitute ballots of all kinds. CA has never had that problem before.That is because IMO, a whole lot of republicans have crossed over to the Democrats, and a whole lot of new people are starting to vote. Maybe you should look at the numbers of who is left to vote Republican from primary samples around the nation. But your comment is off base and not in the reality of things.

[Elrathin]

Let's look at what welfare programs have done to eliminate poverty in this country; NOTHING.

So no welfare has helped ANYONE get out of poverty? I don't think so, I can numerous examples that I have seen in my life with people down on their luck, receiving welfare and becoming productive members of society.

So your NOTHING, means exactly that to me, NOTHING.


Let's look at what the "projects" brought us for housing the poor; rat infested run down cesspools of drugs and crime.

Yep, if you had your choice they would be out on the streets, so much better. :rolleyes:



We have been spending outrageous amounts of money in the "war on poverty." I believe the figure bantered about is about $40 TRILLION dollars over the past decades. How has it worked for our society?

It's worked well for some to get back on their feet, other people abuse it. It's funny that you are against the War on Poverty because it won't end poverty, yet you are FOR the War on Terror which will never get rid of all the terror in the world. Ironic, to say the least.



Well according to Leftists on this web site and the media, poverty has "increased."

That has a lot to do with greedy SOBs that send their business overseas to pay slave wages instead of helping the American Worker.



The FACT is this; Government programs and largess that pander to voters only serves to do ONE thing; create a DEPENDENT class of citizens that relies on Government hand outs by politicians who take it from the productive among us to give to the unproductive and use it as a form of control over their electorate.

I've never argued that welfare doesn't need reform, but throwing away the baby with the bath water is just as ridiculous as getting rid of all welfare programs and scrapping helping anyone.



The societies who have practiced Socialism in the extreme are in decline. The Societies of Europe who bow at the alter to Government largess are attempting to reform these programs because they can no longer continue affording them without destroying their respective economies.

We are NOWHERE NEAR being extreme socialistic. If we were, there would be no Rich people driving around in expensive cars or have their lavous homes yahts and whatever. Rich teens thumbing their noses at the law and getting DUIs while not having to serve serious jail time because their parents have an enormous amount of money to spend on legal expenses, etc etc etc.

So cry me a river about saying this country is extreme socialistic because it wouldn't be even with Clinton as President. This Doom and gloom by some conservatives here is not only pathetic, but highly idiotic.


There is not ONE shred of evidence where Government's confiscation of wealth and it's redistribution has benefited the society as a whole. NO nations have taxed themselves into prosperity. It does NOT work.

It has in many cases whether you want to admit it or not.


The formula for success of any nation to assure the prosperity of it's citizens are the following in my opinion and are proven by the historic record; a good education,

No argument so far, assuming you can afford said education.


Conservative Federal fiscal policy focused on the Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government which is primarily the defense of the nation and administration of it's laws;

Attacking Iraq is not protecting this nation, you can argue that till you're blue in the face, I don't buy it never will. It is wasteful and ridiculous money sink that many conservatives think money grows on trees and they will never have to pay the bill.


embracing success and hard work, embracing law abiding citizens and promoting the family unit and community involvement.

Oh you mean promoting the "Chritian" family unit right? Not those nasty gays that conservatives seem to hate raising children.



Once you embrace the notion that society’s ills can be solved through Government interventionism and legislation, you have already become a slave to that Government with little hope of redemption.

And once you embrace the notion that the poor are something that should be thrown away or left to die, you become a worthless nation of elitists.



History is littered with the good intentions of man gone bad when given sufficient power over his fellow man. Why is it that we are condemned to constantly repeat the past by learning so little from its lessons due to our own ignorance and denial? [/color][/size][/font]


Too bad some conservatives don't learn from theirs.

[dgun]

In your dreams.

Why would you say that? Maybe you assume too much.

This country deserved 8 years of Bush because the people put him in office. But largely we have the ineptness and incompetence of the leaders of the Democrats to thank for that.

And starting in 08 this country will deserve 4 more years of a Republican in the white house. Again largely due to the complete stupidity of the Democratic Party.

Go ahead and vote for Hillary, if you like the best Republican candidate running.

Hell, she has been a more consistent supporter of the Bush policies than McCain.

Let's see: She voted for the war in Iraq. When it became unpopular she was all against it, supposedly. She voted for the Patriot Act. When its 'badness' came to light, she had a change of heart, yet still managed to vote to extend it TWICE. She is so opposed to torturing people. But golly ghee, she has not done a stinking damn thing about it as a US senator. She thinks that illegal wiretapping is naughty, so she says, yet she voted to give the big telecoms a pass. She claims to like the 4th amendment, yet voted to alter FISA such that Bush can continue to wipe his ass with the constitution. And then there is the now infamous Banking bill she voted for in 2004, that strips bankruptcy protection away from people such that they can no longer protect their homes. Funny thing now that bankruptcies are out the roof, she advocates changing it, or so she says. But I doubt her number one contributors, Chase bank and Citigroup, would give her permission to change it.

So go ahead and vote for the best Republican running. Everyone has a right to vote as they wish. Unless you are a sellout talking head for corporate America, then you have to vote how they tell you to.

[preservanation]

A funny thing is that Hillary claims 35 years of experience working for changing the things that precisely need to be changed.
I guess actually succeeding in anything is not part of the criteria.

[Shintao]

Like what, El?


Fundamental conservative differences.

Conserve & Deserve.
War & peace.
Lies & Truth.
Big & Small.

http://tinyurl.com/2np4vm
Desert Topping.
Tolstoy Novel.
Woody Allen Movie.
Richard Scary Picture Book...
What do these have to do with anything?

[dgun]

I guess actually succeeding in anything is not part of the criteria.

Hillary talking about 'change' is grotesque ignorance. She is a deeply rooted, beltway insider.

[preservanation]

I guess actually succeeding in anything is not part of the criteria.

Hillary talking about 'change' is grotesque ignorance. She is a deeply rooted, beltway insider.

I always thought that was a bit goofy too.
Obama said it best..."We need a bridge to the future, not one to the failed policies of the past".
Ouch, what a dig![hr]Hillary is one of the most entrenched politicians alive today.
Her talking about change is like Bill talking about fidelity.

[Shintao]

In your dreams.
Why would you say that? Maybe you assume too much.

wish the boy well, but I don't see republicans holding the white house or the congress. Just too much damage done to even wish for that.

[preservanation]

Most everyone agrees that the GOP has a much better chance defeating Hillary than they do Obama.
Hillary's negative draw has been coined, quite aptly, as "the fear and loathing factor".
This factor should play heavily in the Dem's choice in who they pick for their nominee.

[Grizz]

Most everyone agrees that the GOP has a much better chance defeating Hillary than they do Obama.
Hillary's negative draw has been coined, quite aptly, as "the fear and loathing factor".
This factor should play heavily in the Dem's choice in who they pick for their nominee.



Totally agree. I do believe that a Hillary candidacy will turn out the hard core right to vote for McCain where an Obama nomination will cause them to sit on their hands or even to vote for Barak due to their hatred of McCain. Now, if the nomination proceeds to the convention mostly even between the two, it will be the super delegates who'll pick the nominee (there's about 700 of them). Let the horse trading begin!

[preservanation]

Most everyone agrees that the GOP has a much better chance defeating Hillary than they do Obama.
Hillary's negative draw has been coined, quite aptly, as "the fear and loathing factor".
This factor should play heavily in the Dem's choice in who they pick for their nominee.



Totally agree. I do believe that a Hillary candidacy will turn out the hard core right to vote for McCain where an Obama nomination will cause them to sit on their hands or even to vote for Barak due to their hatred of McCain. Now, if the nomination proceeds to the convention mostly even between the two, it will be the super delegates who'll pick the nominee (there's about 700 of them). Let the horse trading begin!
IMO, you are spot on, Grizz.
Yes, it is very exciting.

I have my ear to conservative talk and there seems to be a min of three major factors which will entice Reagan conservs to get out and vote for McCain...
1) WOT
2) Supreme court nominees
3) Hillary Clinton

Tax cuts and fed spending are high on the list too, but we have some trepidation about McCain following through on his words...for good reason.

[AnnEsthesia]

Funny, I have been told by a lot of Republicans I work with that if there was a choice between McCain and Clinton, they would vote for Clinton.

[preservanation]

Funny, I have been told by a lot of Republicans I work with that if there was a choice between McCain and Clinton, they would vote for Clinton.
Well, AE...We'll just have to change their minds, won't we?

[AnnEsthesia]

Nope, I am quite happy to have them vote for the Dem candidate. But thanks for thinking of me. ;)

[apdst]

Preservanation,

I'm tempted to vote for Hillary. If she gets elected, you bring the lawn chairs and I'll bring the beer and popcorn and we can watch the show. She'll be trying to control the media. She'll be pissing everyone off when she starts digging in our pocket books. The hatred of her that develops from that is going to be plum funny. I can't wait to watch her tear up everyother week. After Hillary gets done with us, we'll all be on welfare.

[BillyPilgrim]

And that's the problem. If she gets elected she WILL ruin the country. While it will amusing as hell watching her destroy the Democratic Party, I don't know if we could recover.

[Elrathin]

And that's the problem. If she gets elected she WILL ruin the country. While it will amusing as hell watching her destroy the Democratic Party, I don't know if we could recover.


It's great watching conservatives get all melodramatic, it brings a smile to my face to see fear in their eyes.

Clinton will not RUIN this country. If anything she would make it better than Bush turned it into that is for sure. Weak dollar, weak economy, poor world view, and a war without end is what Bush has brought to this country. Good bye Bush and good riddance.

[BillyPilgrim]

I don't see that happening. And the shrew she is, she'll alienate her own party. But I'm with you on Dub.

[preservanation]

El, Hillary's HC plan alone will destroy our economy, let alone "taking" oil co. profits, doubling capital gains tax, raising income taxes, reinstating the "death tax", destabilizing the Middle East by abandoning Iraq, subsidizing idiot inefficient-unsustainable energy policies, and raising gov spending. Not only a slowing of our economy but welcome to double digit inflation. Her husband even proposed slowing our economy in the name of the MMGW hoax. January 31, 2008 9:26 AM

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bill-we-just-ha.html

If Bill has anything to say about it, (and I don't see how he couldn't) some sacrifices and consequences we will all have to just accept. For the children.
Ba!

[Tharagor]

sophistry and ignorance defines the opinions from most of those on the left.


What value-add did you think that comment could possibly have? At least Preserva's comment about many on the left not understanding conservatism.

You should simply have stopped a kudo.

[Elrathin]

El, Hillary's HC plan alone will destroy our economy, let alone "taking" oil co. profits, doubling capital gains tax, raising income taxes, reinstating the "death tax", destabilizing the Middle East by abandoning Iraq, subsidizing idiot inefficient-unsustainable energy policies, and raising gov spending. Not only a slowing of our economy but welcome to double digit inflation. Her husband even proposed slowing our economy in the name of the MMGW hoax.[quote] January 31, 2008 9:26 AM


Sorry Pres, but your hatred for Clinton makes your post a little too melodramatic. She will not destroy our economy and will actually make it better than what Bush has done to it.

You claim the Dems were nothing but Doom and gloom with Global Warming, well I see the exact thing with the Republicans and Conservatives being doom and gloom with the economy if Clinton gets elected.

The sad part is I, and many others, gave bush a chance when he got elected in 2000 and I actually supported his policy in regards with Afghanistan. Most people on the right aren't even going to do give the new president a chance if it is a Dem President. It's evident especially on this forum with those on the right calling the future presidency of Clinton or Obama a joke before it even begins. It's getting quite pathetic to say the least.

So forgive me if I don't buy into the "I hate Dems" tripe of the right at this point and time.

[Tharagor]

I supported privatising parts of SS this would have taken some of the funds out of the hands of the thieving politicians, and put it back in control of the individual.


Privatization of such program would only work if they were non-profit organizations. A corporations main goal is to increase profit by any means necessary.

Some may argue that competition should create a balance between cost and quality. However, one should consider that many industries have a cost of entry thus limiting competition and decreasing the effectiveness that that "natural" control.

Simply, when there are no decent providers for an essential service, you grin and bear it and accept what you can get. Just like with insurance.

IMO, corporations are no more trustworthy than politicians.

[underdawg]

I don't think the economy can get much worse than what Bush did to it. Whichever the democratic candidate may be, I do not think they will use fear and intimidation to scare the American public into giving up constitutional rights in exchange for security. More importantly either democratic candidate will not appoint a judge to the supreme court that will attempt to rule against the rights of women and gays.

[Tharagor]

Fantastic reply!

:clapper:

[BillyPilgrim]

You mean the right to life (liberty and the pursuit...)

[preservanation]

Privatization of such program [SS] would only work if they were non-profit organizations.Riiight...
First, what would be the point? What about letting us keep our money and put it into a CD?
The gov is a "non profit" as a matter of fact a "neg-profit" organization, that should be even better by your alleged logic.
Our SSsystem is doomed and nobody in Washington is even addressing it, except by proposing to punish us by denying us our paid-in benefits and raising our taxes for their thievery and mismanagement. Typical Washington solution and finger-pointing.
These are the same people and bureaucracy you want to turn our $300 bill health care business over to.
This is crazy!

How many times does the gov have to screw things up, while the private sector continues to profit, supply jobs, mobility and opportunity, grow our economy and provide for our opulent life style, until people see the light?
It is beyond frustrating.
I have such little faith in some Americans to look at things logically, that I fear if they get what they seem to want, we will have reached our apex as a nation.
Sad.

I still have faith, but it is not in the left or in Gov...it is in the few of us out here who will fight for our freedoms and for the IDEALS of America.
We're not going anywhere.
You may see us all very soon and we will not be clad in tie-dye, Birkenstocks and carrying lattes.

[Tharagor]

Privatization of such program [SS] would only work if they were non-profit organizations.Riiight...
First, what would be the point? What about letting us keep our money and put it into a CD?
The gov is a "non profit" as a matter of fact a "neg-profit" organization, that should be even better by your alleged logic.
Our SSsystem is doomed and nobody in Washington is even addressing it, except by proposing to punish us by denying us our paid-in benefits and raising our taxes for their thievery and mismanagement. Typical Washington solution and finger-pointing.
These are the same people and bureaucracy you want to turn our $300 bill health care business over to.
This is crazy!

How many times does the gov have to screw things up, while the private sector continues to profit, supply jobs, mobility and opportunity, grow our economy and provide for our opulent life style, until people see the light?
It is beyond frustrating.
I have such little faith in some Americans to look at things logically, that I fear if they get what they seem to want, we will have reached our apex as a nation.
Sad.

I still have faith, but it is not in the left or in Gov...it is in the few of us out here who will fight for our freedoms and for the IDEALS of America.
We're not going anywhere.
You may see us all very soon and we will not be clad in tie-dye, Birkenstocks and carrying lattes.


Unfortunately preserva, you completely misunderstood my point. I have as little faith in the government as you do. However, unlike you, I have no faith in big business. Big business really could not care about the overall stability or strength of the economy. If it did, it would not offshore jobs. After all, that only hurts the U.S. economy. They do it because people in economically depressed nations can do the job far more cheaply than our own citizens.

The difference between regular corporations and non-profits is that regular corporations are beholden only o their shareholders, generally the rich, while non-profits care about the people who receive the service.

By an large, corporations do not care about their employees or their customers, they only care about profits. They will decrease quality and service to the lowest levels without losing too many customers. The apathy of the U.S. consumer allows it.

Do not cast aspersions about people's logic when your own has holes large enough to fly the shuttle through.

What I find completely baffling is how people can possibly believe in, or believe we have, a completely free economy. While we are not thoroughly central planning, what do most people think the purpose of the Central Banks are? Do people not realize how much the Federal bank controls the economy?

Preserva, do me a favor and dial it back a bit. I know you recently became part of the staff, but I still think you should be careful about mischaracterization, especially where I am concerned. I choose Doc Martins over Birkenstocks and would only wear tie-die for Halloween.

The SS system has been in shambles for a long time.

[preservanation]

Unfortunately preserva, you completely misunderstood my point. I have as little faith in the government as you do. However, unlike you, I have no faith in big business. Big business really could not care about the overall stability or strength of the economy. If it did, it would not offshore jobs. After all, that only hurts the U.S. economy. They do it because people in economically depressed nations can do the job far more cheaply than our own citizens.Fiddlesticks.
What do you propose instead of private corps?

If a private corp becomes too successful and meets Tharagor's definition of "big", then what?
The proletariat should storm the Bastille and confiscate some profits and redistribute it to less successful enterprises?
Have you thought this through?

You say you don't have faith in gov, or business, so what is your alternative, an egalitarian agricultural society where we all take our crops down to the town square and distribute it evenly to the citizens, no matter how much each individual produces?[hr]BTW...The reason companies move overseas is because The Government makes it too costly to do it here through overregulation and outrageous taxes.
Talk about driving down wages? How about the gov cut taxes??? That would raise everyone's pay!

[Truth Detector]

To assume that Conservative talk-show host oppose McCain because they want to boost their ratings is ridiculous.
There are some very fundamental differences all conservatives have with McCain, his positions and legislation.
To think that this is all some insidious conspiracy to increase ratings is nothing short of sophomoric rambling.
The depth of some people's ignorance about who conservatives are, what they believe, and what they stand for is stunning.

It would behove those who oppose conservatism to at least learn what it is.


Outstanding response.....nothing more need be stated; sophistry and ignorance defines the opinions from most of those on the left.


Do you not see that talk radio bashing the republican candidate for whatever reason will help the democrats? Do you not see that?


As a self employed person, I tune into Rush's show every morning. I hear most of what he says, and like a "mind numbed robot" waiting for his instructions (I love this Leftist/Democrat description of Rush listeners. It truly defines their ignorance), I also find a lot to disagree with on his show.

This is one case where he is, in my opinion, dead wrong in his criticisms. But hey, you are going to believe what you want.

The only thing I find more profound than Rush's poor dialogue about Reaganism and McCain, is the notion that Conservatives think it would be better for Obama or Hilary to become President.

But hey, some may actually stay home rather than vote. This posturing will serve to do nothing more than guarantee that those whom these reputed "conservatives" do NOT agree with get elected to implement their brand of Socialism.

It is rather retarded logic, but there are some in this country who would actually think like this. I happen to not be one of them and it is my hope that when it comes time to decide to vote for McCain, or the Democrat, many will come to their senses and "choose the LESSER of the two evils.” [hr]
I don't think the economy can get much worse than what Bush did to it. Whichever the democratic candidate may be, I do not think they will use fear and intimidation to scare the American public into giving up constitutional rights in exchange for security. More importantly either democratic candidate will not appoint a judge to the supreme court that will attempt to rule against the rights of women and gays.


You obviously have little or NO history of what is considered a "good" economy, or you accept the leftist/Democrat proposition that regardless of all the GOOD news, it really is bad.

I studied economics and business in College and I have to say that even though it has been some time since my graduation, there are still the basics of how a "good" economy is defined and it hasn't changed much:

GDP in excess of 2.5%
Unemployment below 6%
Inflation less than double digit and preferably in the range of 2 to 4%.
Low interest rates.

So with that as our measurement, and based on the latest economic information, we are in relatively good times compared with past Administrations.

Controlling and reducing wasteful spending is imperative. Establishing sound monetary policy is equally an imperative. But the notion that by passing legislation that would costs trillions to provide social welfare to our citizens as being conducive to economic health is absurd and ill-informed in the extreme.

The primary threat to our economic well-being is the activist role of our legislators attempting to legislate the effects of the market which will only serves to distort the market effects and exacerbate the economic problems that markets have a built in corrective mechanisms to deal with. [hr]IMO, corporations are no more trustworthy than politicians.

This again begs the question as to what your point is.

It is naive to suggest that anyone would totally TRUST Government, Corporations or even your neighbor.

But to suggest that it is better to put your trust in Government over self reliance is historically false.

Although it is hard to distinguish what YOUR points ever are, many here including myself are not arguing one should "trust" Corporations when debating things like Social Security. Rather, we are exposing the corrupt Government Ponzi scheme that it is and suggesting a BETTER alternative.

Meanwhile, you continue to offer up nothing more then empty "speak." Is it your position that Government is MORE trustworthy? That we are better off creating dependent classes of citizens that are reliant on the Government largess which panders for their votes?

Or are we all better off not putting our faith in Governmental solutions which have a poor history of positive results and put it into ourselves and the free open market?

Whatever is your point in all this?

[Wndrtch]

There are some very fundamental differences all conservatives have with McCain, his positions and legislation.


Conservatives themselves have very fundamental differences with each other.


Liberals do to, they're just better at keeping their mouths shut about them.[hr]
I don't think the economy can get much worse than what Bush did to it.

I suppose that as a Dempocrat, you have conveniently forgotten about the Great Jimmy Carter debacle. :dork:

Whichever the democratic candidate may be, I do not think they will use fear and intimidation to scare the American public into giving up constitutional rights in exchange for security.

No, they will just take away your constitutional rights, and use fear and intimidation to scare you to vote for them. :fight:


More importantly either democratic candidate will not appoint a judge to the supreme court that will attempt to rule against the rights of women and gays.


They'll just rule against the rights of the unborn and religions. :shame: