Limbaugh: I'm McCain's 'most valuable asset'

[AlonzoMourning23]

(CNN) — He's aggressively targeted John McCain ever since the Arizona senator began his meteoric rise in the polls, but conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday he may actually be the Arizona senator's "most valuable asset."

Commenting on the mainstream media's fixation with his feelings about McCain, Limbaugh said there may be more to his criticisms than meets the eye.

"If I really wanted to torpedo McCain, I would endorse him," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "Because that would send the independents and liberals who are going to vote for him running away faster than anything."

"What people don't realize is that I am doing McCain the biggest favor that can be done for him by staying out of this," he continued. "If I endorsed him thoroughly and with passion, that would end the independents and moderates, because they so despise me and they so hate me."

Limbaugh, along with several other prominent conservative radio hosts, have long spoken out against the Arizona senator over his stances on a range of issues and his history of working with Democrats on issues such as immigration and campaign finance reform.

Limbaugh's attacks in particular got so heated that former Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole wrote the talk-show host last week defending McCain — calling him a "mainstream conservative" who supported the party on critical votes during Dole's time as the Senate Republican leader."

Limbaugh later said of the letter that McCain was "manipulating" Dole.

Yet despite the fiery rhetoric, Limbaugh on Monday suggested members of the media weren't digging deep enough into his comments.

"Couldn't it be said, if somebody wanted to…that I am secretly supporting McCain, because I secretly do want him to win, but I know full well that if I come out and endorse him, he's cooked?" Limbaugh asked. "Who may be in this whole kit and caboodle, this who shebang, the most valuable asset McCain has?"

"Me."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[ViolaLee]

What a blow hard.

[underdawg]

So Rush thinks he is doing McCain a favor? Ha ha

[AlonzoMourning23]

I hope he keeps doing this favor all year. I like seeing the base so disenchanted.

[Lucky13]

No shortage of self esteem for ole Rush.
He really does have an inflated sense of his impact.

The shock jocks of the right wing are losing ground.
There are a lot of Republicans that I talk to that can't stand Limbaugh, Hannity and crew.
I don't blame them.....they are an embarrassment and their time is past.
pat

[Labrocca]

"If I really wanted to torpedo McCain, I would endorse him," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "Because that would send the independents and liberals who are going to vote for him running away faster than anything."

"What people don't realize is that I am doing McCain the biggest favor that can be done for him by staying out of this," he continued. "If I endorsed him thoroughly and with passion, that would end the independents and moderates, because they so despise me and they so hate me."

And what does he say that's wrong? Seems right on target to me. I mentioned something similar to this yesterday where Ann, Sean Hannity, and Rush are HELPING McCain more than anything. Rush is just wise enough to actually admit it. He knows he is hated and in reality he is entertainment political commentator.

There are a lot of Republicans that I talk to that can't stand Limbaugh, Hannity and crew.

And you only prove his point with that statement.

I like seeing the base so disenchanted.

The base has quickly become the one percenters. The so-called base has now been side-lined by the masses of Republicans disenchanted with the radical right wing.

[Drocket]

Sounds to me like Rush is trying to find an excuse for why McCain is doing well despite him. When McCain wins despite Limbaugh's best efforts at killing his candidacy, he'll be there trying to claim he was working on McCain's behalf all the while, all in a desperate attempt to appear to still be relevant.

Rush's days of glory aren't entirely over yet, but the sun is most definitely setting on him and his kind.

[Labrocca]

As I said..Rush and crew are entertainment. They are political commentators. I don't see why people take them on either side seriously. It's like taking Al Franken seriously or Bill Maher. Too much emphasis is placed on what these people say. Most of the Rush and Ann threads I see are started by Liberals and Democrats that want to point fingers at the bad behavior of what they percieve to be the average righty.

Rush has one agenda...RATINGS.

[Drocket]

Tell you what, we'll stop taking people like Limbaugh seriously when his followers stop taking him seriously. Until then, we're stuck dealing with a depressingly large group of voting idiots who think Hillary murdered Vince Foster, and people like Huckabee, who released a murdering rapist because of conspiracy-theory stories spread by Rush and his ilk. (I'm sure the families of the two women that guy went on to murder find Rush's antics quite amusing.)

[Fishingriver]

My Dad was Rush's father's roommate in college. Dad told me that Rush Sr would laugh if he heard what Rush says about attorneys. Ironically, most of the males in Rush Jr.'s family also are attorneys. He doesn't advertise that often having spent so much time demonizing them.

I think Rush doesn't want to lose any more audience than he has to. If Romney had pulled out a win, Rush would have taken credit for it. Now that Romney lost, Rush wants to take credit for helping McCain.

[Tharagor]

He may have a point, anyone with a lick of sense disagrees with him.

[Labrocca]

Tell you what, we'll stop taking people like Limbaugh seriously when his followers stop taking him seriously.

I got news for ya. People already don't take him seriously. If you are that's a problem you need to deal with personally.

How about this? Anyone here that is a "Rush Follower" (your term) please raise your hand.

[lily]

And what does he say that's wrong? Seems right on target to me. I mentioned something similar to this yesterday where Ann, Sean Hannity, and Rush are HELPING McCain more than anything. Rush is just wise enough to actually admit it. He knows he is hated and in reality he is entertainment political commentator.

No, what actually seems right on target is Rush knows that McCain is going to be the nominee and if he wants his listeners, he's going to have to start backpeddling now.........there's a whole campaign season left and he can't keep insulting the Republican candidate, when there is a Democrat that he can use for fodder....he'd lose his listening base if he didn't insult them!

[preservanation]

Tell you what, we'll stop taking people like Limbaugh seriously when his followers stop taking him seriously.

I got news for ya. People already don't take him seriously. If you are that's a problem you need to deal with personally.

How about this? Anyone here that is a "Rush Follower" (your term) please raise your hand.
Right here....
Big fan, since Aug 1994.

I rarely try to defended him anymore because it is useless with the left who have already made up their mind, especially when they have never listened for more than 10 min. They are too entrenched.

VoilaLee, or is it AE?(sorry)... is one of the few exceptions. Though her hate for him is palatable, she can at least speak to his positions without the distortion of a third or fourth party filter.[hr]Anybody want to debate his positions with me is welcome to do so, but in my world calling him a big fat pill-popper doesn't qualify as debate.
He is on air 15 hrs a week...there has to be other things one can attack him on.
If not, that speaks to Rush's credit more than I could ever do.

[Tharagor]

Right here....
Big fan, since Aug 1994.


Sorry to hear that.


I rarely try to defended him anymore because it is useless with the left who have already made up their mind, especially when they have never listened for more than 10 min. They are too entrenched.


I gave him an ear, mainly to find out what people were talking about, in the eighties, laughed and walked away. I found him the Dice Clay of the conservative world, except he was serious, not comedy.

I can't speak to his direct positions today because I did make a decision about him when it mattered and from what I've heard, his assumptions haven't changed.

He's not quite as left as Alex Jones, but much further left than rational.

He's a free-market capitalist, although he doesn't realize that there are no mature free-markets.

He vociferously railed against drug use/abuse only to be exposed as a hypocrite. Notice, I didn't call him a pill-popper, I called him a hypocrite.

I'll add to this post later, I had just a few moments and felt it important enough to pop a few words in on this one.

[Drocket]

I rarely try to defended him anymore because it is useless with the left who have already made up their mind, especially when they have never listened for more than 10 min. They are too entrenched.

I'm sorry to say that I spent several years listening to him on virtually a daily basis. Not of my own free will - I was stuck with somebody who was a fan. Rush's arguments are nonsensical, illogical and hate-filled. Half of the subjects he debates are based on outright lies, and the other half he has to jump around quickly in order to avoid the massive logical flaws in his position. Nevertheless, people DO take him seriously as a political commentator.

I say this about few people, but when Rush dies, the world will instantaneously become a better place.

[Tharagor]

I rarely try to defended him anymore because it is useless with the left who have already made up their mind, especially when they have never listened for more than 10 min. They are too entrenched.

I'm sorry to say that I spent several years listening to him on virtually a daily basis. Not of my own free will - I was stuck with somebody who was a fan. Rush's arguments are nonsensical, illogical and hate-filled. Half of the subjects he debates are based on outright lies, and the other half he has to jump around quickly in order to avoid the massive logical flaws in his position. Nevertheless, people DO take him seriously as a political commentator.

I say this about few people, but when Rush dies, the world will instantaneously become a better place.


:clapper:

[Labrocca]

Rush's arguments are nonsensical, illogical and hate-filled.

Alright...

I say this about few people, but when Rush dies, the world will instantaneously become a better place.

I gotta say Rush isn't the only one with illogical hate-filled arguments that are non-sensical.

Right here....
Big fan, since Aug 1994.

Does "fan" mean you are a follower? Do you do everything Rush says? Do you agree with him on everything? I am a fan of the O'Reilly Factor but the guy can say some loony shit sometimes.

[Drocket]

The problem with Rush isn't that his fans may agree with him on every issue: the problem is that his fans make the mistake of believing that his opinions are founded on some sort of reality. He lies, continuously and with religious fervor, and even when his audience disagrees with his conclusions, far too often, they still leave believing the foundations that his conclusions lay on, foundations that more often than not are utterly untrue.

The problem with Rush isn't that he's a political commentator that 'liberals' disagree with: the problem is that he's a propagandist who spreads misinformation.

[Easy90]

He's bombastic, egotistical, repetitive, and offensive to many...but he doesn't lie. He doesn't have to. Oh the libs lie about him though. :lmao:

He has a formula for making politics entertaining, He's extremely wealthy (because he earned his money by working hard)...and he has insight into liberalism to such an intense degree that liberals literally hate him with a death wish...(witness the foaming at the mouth and pure, irrational hate in this forum.) They all like to say "he's a liar"...but they can't ever actually (accurately, in context) quote any lies he tells.

I used to catch him an hour or so a week back in the late 90s...but don't listen now. I've heard his act.

[Drocket]

A good liar doesn't actually have to lie. A good liar prefaces all of his lies with "I hear" or "reports indicate" or "some say" - weasel words that deflect responsibility for the untrue claims made. The presence of those weasel words is how you know for sure that the liar is in fact a liar and not just wrong. Witness pretty much all of Bush's speeches leading up to the invasion of Iraq...

[preservanation]

I gave him an ear, mainly to find out what people were talking about, in the eighties, laughed and walked away. I found him the Dice Clay of the conservative world, except he was serious, not comedy.Rush started in 1988...must have been quite a shock!
I can't speak to his direct positions today because I did make a decision about him when it mattered and from what I've heard, his assumptions haven't changed.His style might have changed in thirty years, since you heard him, but his brand of Reagan conservatism...not so much.He's a free-market capitalist, although he doesn't realize that there are no mature free-markets.What does this mean?Does "fan" mean you are a follower? Do you do everything Rush says? Do you agree with him on everything?I am willing to try to explain Rush's views, but not to make this a referendum on *The Great preservanation*.
That is a road I wish not to travel. I've been there before and it is ill graded.

I will try to explain Rush's POV, but that is it.
I am a fan of the O'Reilly Factor but the guy can say some loony sh1t sometimes. No Doubt!

[Tharagor]

Rush started in 1988...must have been quite a shock!


Not really. I clearly remembered the insanity of Reagan and the lunatic PMRC.


His style might have changed in thirty years, since you heard him, but his brand of Reagan conservatism...not so much.


In other words, I haven't missed anything and I need not bother wasting my time listening to him. He's still spouting useless blather.




He's a free-market capitalist, although he doesn't realize that there are no mature free-markets.

What does this mean?


No mature economy has a free market. I've been listening to Greenspan's Age of Turbulence and I realized that no nation with a mature economy, okay well maybe except for Guernsey, has a free market system, not even the United States.

[preservanation]

Limbaugh: I'm McCain's 'most valuable asset'
Posted: 05:10 PM ET


Limbaugh has been highly critical of McCain, but on Tuesday the talk show host said he is actually doing the Arizona senator a favor.
(CNN) — He's aggressively targeted John McCain ever since the Arizona senator began his meteoric rise in the polls, but conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday he may actually be the Arizona senator's "most valuable asset."

Commenting on the mainstream media's fixation with his feelings about McCain, Limbaugh said there may be more to his criticisms than meets the eye.

"If I really wanted to torpedo McCain, I would endorse him," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "Because that would send the independents and liberals who are going to vote for him running away faster than anything."

"What people don't realize is that I am doing McCain the biggest favor that can be done for him by staying out of this," he continued. "If I endorsed him thoroughly and with passion, that would end the independents and moderates, because they so despise me and they so hate me."

Limbaugh, along with several other prominent conservative radio hosts, have long spoken out against the Arizona senator over his stances on a range of issues and his history of working with Democrats on issues such as immigration and campaign finance reform.

Limbaugh's attacks in particular got so heated that former Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole wrote the talk-show host last week defending McCain — calling him a "mainstream conservative" who supported the party on critical votes during Dole's time as the Senate Republican leader."

Limbaugh later said of the letter that McCain was "manipulating" Dole.

Yet despite the fiery rhetoric, Limbaugh on Monday suggested members of the media weren't digging deep enough into his comments.

"Couldn't it be said, if somebody wanted to…that I am secretly supporting McCain, because I secretly do want him to win, but I know full well that if I come out and endorse him, he's cooked?" Limbaugh asked. "Who may be in this whole kit and caboodle, this who shebang, the most valuable asset McCain has?"

"Me."http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/12/limbaugh-im-mccains-most-valuable-asset/

Here is Rush's interview with TIME:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1713041-2,00.html[hr]When the rubber hits the road, independents and moderates are less likely to vote for McCain over a Dem anyway.
I don't believe it for a moment.
If McCain is actually relying on their support, Rush or Dobson or National review, enthusiastically endorsing him would drive that contingent further away.
They HATE Rush.

If Mod/Indies were told Rush said "water is wet", they would argue and contend that assertion. Probably accuse him of being on pills again!

[Deadshot]

You guys realize that it's February, right? What Rush, Ann, Hannity, etc. say today might just change over the next 7 1/2 months, you understand that...right?

I would assume that if EITHER of the Dem candidates break out, or it's decided at the Convention in August, all of September & October - AT THE VERY LEAST - would be the time that Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity or any other Right wing media person would open up the Haterade on the Dems.

Right now they're playing it cute. But, and this won't happen because each of these people are at the top of their field for a reason, but IF after the election McCain lost by a few hundred thousand votes and people came up and said "I didn't vote for McCain because Rush/Ann/Sean said he wasn't Conservative enough!" Those media people are in BIG trouble. It's about ratings people and who provides those ratings? The audience.

Rush/Ann/Sean can play around and be cutesy about now, the elections almost 8 months out. But this type of crap won't go on with 3 months left. They will back McCain, and they just might get McCain to toe the Conservative line. But there's no way that they'll back the opposition because should the opposition win they're sunk.

Think about it. What happens to Ann Coulter's rep and her career if Hillary beats McCain and some Conservatives come out and say that they followed Ann's advice?

This is just a play for ratings. Rush/Ann/Sean are about their careers, NOT trying to make the United States a better place. They FEED off the hatred and want to keep that fire burning hot.

[Easy90]

They FEED off the hatred and want to keep that fire burning hot.

I tend to agree...but, what you don't understand I think, is that you illustrate the "hatred" they feed off of. He (and Ann) turn(s) Liberals inside out with their own words. They have an unending supply of material from the Left, that they artfully use against them...in (for Limbaugh) a three hour daily solo act...(and for Coulter, a weekly column) and the most Liberals can do in their defense is try to get them to SHUT UP! Why? Because they use the the liberal's own words to make them look silly.

A good liar doesn't actually have to lie.

You don't see the humor in that pronouncement...do you? It's that irrational and frustrated sentiment from Liberals that makes Limbaugh rich.

[Deadshot]

They FEED off the hatred and want to keep that fire burning hot.

I tend to agree...but, what you don't understand I think, is that you illustrate the "hatred" they feed off of. He (and Ann) turn(s) Liberals inside out with their own words. They have an unending supply of material from the Left, that they artfully use against them...in (for Limbaugh) a three hour daily solo act...(and for Coulter, a weekly column) and the most Liberals can do in their defense is try to get them to SHUT UP! Why? Because they use the the liberal's own words to make them look silly.

I admit that I do hate Ann/Rush/Sean, no problem there. But I don't hate the majority of Conservatives. These people are, to use an analogy, are the kids who as a fight seems to be breaking up yell "That guy called you a pussy!" They enjoy and love the hatred and if we begin come closer or if we do find a point of agreement, they're mad!

So if it was about making one side look "silly" I could live with that. EACH side says stupid stuff from time to time, but these are the type of people who take an argument and escalate it to a fist fight. I've met "ditto-heads" that simply didn't like me because I was a Liberal. Then we'd talk and things would be fine and they'd see me as a human being, not a political party tool.

Rush/Ann/Sean feed off the hatred, that's a bad thing for EVERYONE, not just Liberals.

A good liar doesn't actually have to lie.

You don't see the humor in that pronouncement...do you? It's that irrational and frustrated sentiment from Liberals that makes Limbaugh rich.


Think about what it takes to get rich with his rhetoric? His national audience is 13.5 million, which is the BEST on talk radio. Now think about th 300 million people in America. So he has between 4-5% of the country who listens to his speil, and he got rich off of that. But those 4-5% want to hear about how they're right and all others are wrong. His big numbers were during the Clinton years when he told Conservatives what they wanted to hear.

So it's not the Liberals making him rich, it's Conservatives who are the choir that keeps coming back to hear him preach.

[preservanation]

But there's no way that they'll back the opposition because should the opposition win they're sunk. I hear this a lot, fortunately it has not been shown to be correct.
Rush's detractors said he was dead after Clinton was elected...His audience swelled. They said when Clinton left that he was dead because he wouldn't have anyone to rail against...His audience swelled. Now these same people are saying he is irrelevant, but he's in the news more than ever and was actually in an exit poll question in NH.
The best bet to diminish Rush's influence is for liberals to stop being liberal...try that and we'll see if it works.

BTW, Rush has 20 Mill, separate listeners every week, the most listened to radio show of all time. Sean is not far behind. Conservatives are not going to go away, and neither is Rush.
The only way the left can get rid of him and conservatives is through laws and legislation...infringing on our political speech and our constitutional rights. To many this would be perfectly acceptable and would support such measures.[hr]I think the biggest problem lib/Dems and the big gov Republicans have with some Conservatives, is not the usual stuff they preach...It is the fact that most advocate for a small and limited Federal Gov. That's what drives them nuts.
Gov is their end all and be all, their church if you will, and reducing that influence is akin to attacking their holy sacrament.

[Tharagor]

The best bet to diminish Rush's influence is for liberals to stop being liberal...try that and we'll see if it works.


Highly unlikely to happen. I, for example, have never found a conservative or Republican argument compelling.


I think the biggest problem lib/Dems and the big gov Republicans have with some Conservatives, is not the usual stuff they preach...It is the fact that most advocate for a small and limited Federal Gov. That's what drives them nuts.
Gov is their end all and be all, their church if you will, and reducing that influence is akin to attacking their holy sacrament.


From the size of the Republican rolls one could say the same about them. The difference between the Dems and the Repubs is where they want large government.

Dems/liberals want large government social programs because they feel them to be necessary. They also want the government to step in and protect the minorities from the majority.

The Repubs want lots of military spending because the commies are evil and we have to help protect Israel.

The libertarians, like yourself, want a return to nineteenth century practices that inexorably lead to abuse of human rights.

Out of those three, I'll choose liberal/Dem every time.

[Kamehameha34]

The libertarians, like yourself, want a return to nineteenth century practices that inexorably lead to abuse of human rights.

Interesting theory, especially considering the foundation of libertarianism is that the government exists only to protect human rights.

You think human rights aren't being tresspassed upon when it's the government that's doing it?

[preservanation]

From the size of the Republican rolls one could say the same about them.I did... I think the biggest problem lib/Dems and the big gov Republicans have with some Conservatives, is not the usual stuff they preach...It is the fact that most advocate for a small and limited Federal Gov.The difference between the Dems and the Repubs is where they want large government.Not necessarily, Bush enacted the prescription drug benefit...Huge. Increased the education budget more than anyone since FDR, Ted Kennedy (D, Ma) was actually invited and responsible in writing the bill, (no child left behind). As a matter of fact our Fed budget is now almost $4 trill the argument that we are not spending enough is laughable. If this was a Dem administration expanding Gov instead of Bush and the Repub, the Left would be heralding them as the greatest thing since the Great Society. It chaps them that the Dems can't take sole credit for any of it. It chaps me that any of it happened at all. This is not small gov conservatism, and Bush and other big gov Reps are not innocent bystanders.

This most recent economic stimulus package is another example...why is $$$ in the hands of consumers in the form of a Gov "gift" be good for the economy, but the same concept in the form of tax cuts not? Through this logic everyone should support tax cuts who want a strong economy, but the left argues the exact opposite Because it increases our dependence on the great, powerful and wise Mother Fed Gov. that's whyThe Repubs want lots of military spending because the commies are evil and we have to help protect Israel.Most conservatives agree that our Military is necessary to preserve our freedom, some disagree with Iraq and Israel because they don't think it speaks to our national defense. Fine, that is a debate worth having, but many libs just hate the military and want us to gut it like Clinton did.
Providing for our common defense is one of the duties of our Fed Gov specifically enumerated in our Constitution...All this other stuff is not.The libertarians, like yourself, want a return to nineteenth century practices that inexorably lead to abuse of human rights.We do?
We have liberated Millions under both Dem and Rep administrations
America defends Human Rights all over this world. If you don't believe that then your dissatisfaction is with America itself, and not just Conservatives.[hr]McCain has said that he will veto any bill that has an earmark in it and shrink the Gov.
I have my doubts.
He has been in Wash for...? ever?
and has a history of siding with the Dems.
This statement is suspect due to his track record.

[Tharagor]

The libertarians, like yourself, want a return to nineteenth century practices that inexorably lead to abuse of human rights.

Interesting theory, especially considering the foundation of libertarianism is that the government exists only to protect human rights.

You think human rights aren't being tresspassed upon when it's the government that's doing it?


It truly depends on which human rights you're talking about. The Libertarian ideal of governmental non-intervention does not necessarily provide protections for minorities.

The rule of law should protect minorities because without such Democracy can devolve into mob rule.

Civil rights law is a form of necessary government intervention.

[Tharagor]

Not necessarily, Bush enacted the prescription drug benefit...Huge. Increased the education budget more than anyone since FDR, Ted Kennedy (D, Ma) was actually invited and responsible in writing the bill, (no child left behind). As a matter of fact our Fed budget is now almost $4 trill the argument that we are not spending enough is laughable.


I would certainly agree that Bush has not been a good example of the Republican ideal. However, I should point out that you are exxagerating just a bit. The 2008 budget is 2.5 trillion and the 2009 budget is 2.7 trillion. Given that the military budget is 568.9 billion alone, with the Defense budget 6.6 times that of Health and Human Services, one can hardly say that social programs are the majority of government expenses.


If this was a Dem administration expanding Gov instead of Bush and the Repub, the Left would be heralding them as the greatest thing since the Great Society. It chaps them that the Dems can't take sole credit for any of it. It chaps me that any of it happened at all. This is not small gov conservatism, and Bush and other big gov Reps are not innocent bystanders.


Well, since the budget is much more heavily weighted to military than anything else, I'd have to disagree with your assessment of the reason for the "big" government that you're describing.


This most recent economic stimulus package is another example...why is $$$ in the hands of consumers in the form of a Gov "gift" be good for the economy, but the same concept in the form of tax cuts not? Through this logic everyone should support tax cuts who want a strong economy, but the left argues the exact opposite Because it increases our dependence on the great, powerful and wise Mother Fed Gov.


I think you'll have to do a little better than that. You're generalizing, making unfounded claims, and from my research the Democrats aren't against the tax rebate program, they just wanted to negotiate the form of the program.



The Repubs want lots of military spending because the commies are evil and we have to help protect Israel.Most conservatives agree that our Military is necessary to preserve our freedom, some disagree with Iraq and Israel because they don't think it speaks to our national defense. Fine, that is a debate worth having, but many libs just hate the military and want us to gut it like Clinton did.


Of course conservatives think that military spending is necessary as they see danger under every rock and inside every crevice. It's been over 100 years since we were in a war where our freedom was actually endangered.

World War 1 had nothing to do with us. We became involved when we ignored Germany and tried to ship arms to their enemies.

We were attacked win World War 2 because we allowed the Chinese government to recruit from within the U.S. active military. Yes, they retired, then they accepted offers from China and later left the employment of the Chinese and returned to active military service, but much evidence exists that Roosevelt wanted to get us into the war and that was how he did it.

Korea had nothing to do with our freedom.

Vietnam had nothing to do with our freedom.

Desert Storm had nothing to do with our freedom.

Operation Just Cause had nothing to do with our freedom.

Operation Iraqi Liberation had nothing to do with our freedom.

Our military presence in the world right now is only causing problems, not creating solutions. How then can we justify over 400 billion dollars for 2008 alone spent on the military? How is our freedom being threatened?


Providing for our common defense is one of the duties of our Fed Gov specifically enumerated in our Constitution...All this other stuff is not.

You are absolutely correct, providing for the common defense is one of the duties, but such spending is only justifiable when we're being threatened. The rest depends on interpretation of certain clauses of our Constitution.

One could argue that social welfare is necessary for our economy. Which, considering the following excepts from Article 1 Sec. 8 of our constitution, makes legislation of such social welfare programs constitutional:


To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



The libertarians, like yourself, want a return to nineteenth century practices that inexorably lead to abuse of human rights.We do?


Please correct me if I am wrong, but Libertarians are against any legislation that expands government powers and controls.

Government intervention resulted in the following amendments:

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
Amendment 24 - Poll Taxes Barred
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years

Of course, the 18th amendment was not a good idea, but that was fixed with the 21st amendment.

Additionally, the legislature is empowered to enact any law it feels is necessary to carry out it's assigned duties, empowering the Legislature to write the United States Code (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/browse.html).

Such government intervention ended child labor, abusively low wages by setting a minimum wage, and established standards for working hours.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is an example of government intervention to protect people from the abuses of laizzes faire capitalism.

Additionally the Central Bank system was put into place to control the wild swings an unchecked capitalistic economy has. This is another form of governmental intervention that is essential to our continued


We have liberated Millions under both Dem and Rep administrations
America defends Human Rights all over this world.
If you don't believe that then your dissatisfaction is with America itself, and not just Conservatives.


There's a difference between defending human rights now and the abuse of human rights that occurred in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but would Libertarians not have us return to a laizzes faire economy? Such inexorably results in abuse of the worker.

Perhaps I misunderstand the Libertarian position?

[Drocket]

If this was a Dem administration expanding Gov instead of Bush and the Repub, the Left would be heralding them as the greatest thing since the Great Society.

If it was a Democratic program, it would have been built around helping as many people as possible. The program is, instead, a massive taxpayer-funded giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. Oh, certainly it helps some people, but that's almost a coincidental side-effect of the program.

[preservanation]

You are absolutely correct, providing for the common defense is one of the duties, but such spending is only justifiable when we're being threatened. The rest depends on interpretation of certain clauses of our Constitution.Exactly!
We interpret things quite differently.
As the near totality of your previous post indicates.

If you would like to amend the Constitution, lobby you representatives to do so...the bar is high in Congress and one needs 2/3 rds of the states to go along with whatever it is you want.
Go big or don't go at all![hr]
If this was a Dem administration expanding Gov instead of Bush and the Repub, the Left would be heralding them as the greatest thing since the Great Society.

If it was a Democratic program, it would have been built around helping as many people as possible. The program is, instead, a massive taxpayer-funded giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. Oh, certainly it helps some people, but that's almost a coincidental side-effect of the program.
That has never been proved by any of the other big gov programs in the past, so I don't know why you would believe that "would have" happened as you "think" it would have.
Your assumption is not borne out of past results.

[Tharagor]

You are absolutely correct, providing for the common defense is one of the duties, but such spending is only justifiable when we're being threatened. The rest depends on interpretation of certain clauses of our Constitution.Exactly!
We interpret things quite differently.
As the near totality of your previous post indicates.

If you would like to amend the Constitution, lobby you representatives to do so...the bar is high in Congress and one needs 2/3 rds of the states to go along with whatever it is you want.
Go big or don't go at all!


Whoa, you ignore the entire argument commenting that you interpret it differently and you don't even bother providing justification?

That's tantamount admitting that you know your argument doesn't hold water.

:madlaugh:

Way to go preserva!

:thumbsup:

[preservanation]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but Libertarians are against any legislation that expands government powers and controls.

Government intervention resulted in the following amendments:

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
Amendment 24 - Poll Taxes Barred
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years
These are you points.
You say they are good. Fine, they were enacted through the amendment process.
Your point was?

[bishop]

rush's babble reminds me of howard stern's fall from grace.. stern suggested that he could influence millions of voters who were like his special flock of sheep. while i often think of rush's fans as mindless automatons, i doubt that rush will have anywhere near the influence on their votes as he purports.

[preservanation]

while i often think of rush's fans as mindless automatons, i doubt that rush will have anywhere near the influence on their votes as he purports. This is a bit contradictory, don't you think?

[Tharagor]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but Libertarians are against any legislation that expands government powers and controls.

Government intervention resulted in the following amendments:

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
Amendment 24 - Poll Taxes Barred
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years
These are you points.
You say they are good. Fine, they were enacted through the amendment process.
Your point was?


They are all obvious examples of expansion of the power of the Federal Government.

[preservanation]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but Libertarians are against any legislation that expands government powers and controls.

Government intervention resulted in the following amendments:

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
Amendment 24 - Poll Taxes Barred
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years
These are you points.
You say they are good. Fine, they were enacted through the amendment process.
Your point was?


They are all obvious examples of expansion of the power of the Federal Government.
You are correct.
But they were all enacted through the legal amendment process, not installed socialism through government fiat, bypassing the constitutional process as some seem to want to do.