ECU-ALUM Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 This thread...and I know I have contributed my share to it so I am not above being criticzed for some of the things I have said...but the round and round nature and all that has suddenly made me realize something...I don't drink nearly enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Your premise is the President of the United States should accept a debate from the leader of any opposition party at any given time they demand.Just because they say Rush is the leader, does not all of a sudden make him entitled to debate the POTUS. Please explain to me how this is not insane. Or go ahead and point out why any sane President would do so. Up until today, I thought this whole Limbaugh thing was a stupid distraction. But now that it's coming how high up the "Limbaugh strategy" goes, I'm pissed that the white house would actually engage in something that petty. The white house already stooped to the level of pettiness embodied by Limbaugh when they singled him out as their patsy to make conservatives look bad. To now claim that the administration is above his level is impossible. For the record, I don't like Limbaugh and wish like hell that he didn't have the influence he does have. I blame the Democrats for giving him relevance again so I don't want to see them slide off the hook for this strategy of Limbaugh promotion they have adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Speaking of debates, it will be interesting to see the response coming from the White House. I hope the White House doesn't respond and instead focuses on the task at hand It is good politics to respond though and keep the distraction up However I'd be more concerned with making sure Tim Geithner knows what the **** he is talking about before I'd be concerned with Mr. Limbaugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Speaking of debates, it will be interesting to see the response coming from the White House. Don't hold your breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Liberty, you are such a nice, loving young man. Hehe. So now we are graveling, stupid, sycophants, and pathetic. How old are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I hope the White House doesn't respond and instead focuses on the task at handIt is good politics to respond though and keep the distraction up However I'd be more concerned with making sure Tim Geithner knows what the **** he is talking about before I'd be concerned with Mr. Limbaugh Agreed, Even thought polls show overwhelming support for Obama right now with his handling of the economy in the face of the wall street meltdown. That COULD change very quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Let the record reflect that "pysco", "silly", and "crazy pills" talk is coming from the left in this debate.Speaking of debates, it will be interesting to see the response coming from the White House. Serious question crazy pills – if Nancy Pelosi demanded a debate with President Bush whenever she wanted, what do you would have said? I bet the reaction on this board would have been....well hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 not worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Agreed, Even thought polls show overwhelming support for Obama right now with his handling of the economy in the face of the wall street meltdown. That COULD change very quickly. If it is prolonged and devastating yes. I don't think President Obama's ratings will take any type of hit before election 2010. And to be honest I don't think he has much to worry about in 2012 But you certainly don't want your SecTres to come off looking like a noob again the next time he speaks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Let the record reflect that "pysco", "silly", and "crazy pills" talk is coming from the left in this debate.Speaking of debates, it will be interesting to see the response coming from the White House. well, I used psycho. And I'm a registered Republican. I just don't buy Rush's brand of BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I hope the White House doesn't respond and instead focuses on the task at handIt is good politics to respond though and keep the distraction up However I'd be more concerned with making sure Tim Geithner knows what the **** he is talking about before I'd be concerned with Mr. Limbaugh Exactly. But the White House started this mess. Bill Clinton did the same thing in 1993 and Rush told him directly (via the radio) that it was not a wise move and he needs to focus on the matters at hand. Clinton actually took the advice and moved on from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Your trolling has become embarrassing in recent monthsI miss the old Liberty I'm not going to use a friendly tone with political hacks in political threads If you want to present an argument go ahead, otherwise get off it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I'm not going to use a friendly tone with political hacks in political threadsIf you want to present an argument go ahead, otherwise get off it We have Essentially we have pointed out the White House has a mini obsession with Mr. Limbaugh I think its good politics right now. It could easily backfire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Serious question crazy pills – if Nancy Pelosi demanded a debate with President Bush whenever she wanted, what do you would have said?I bet the reaction on this board would have been....well hilarious. I would say they had an indirect debate for several years - budget battles and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I'm not going to use a friendly tone with political hacks in political threadsIf you want to present an argument go ahead, otherwise get off it If you were smart you would have been born 50 years ago instead of 21 years ago. WHAT NOW!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 BB's Response: but the Dems said Rush was the head of the GOP....And round and round we go. And had the Democrats meant it literally, they'd all be committed. Limbaugh has been cast as the go-to-demagogue for the fantasyland subset of GOP philosophy. Nobody's literally claiming that he's the Head Elected Official In Charge. He sits behind a microphone, and everybody knows that. If some people refuse to acknowledge that huge and obvious distinction, then their Reliable Narrator Club membership cards need to get revoked. For the record, the mess the GOP finds itself in today is bigger than anything Limbaugh could accomplish. Casting him as the unofficial head of party groupthink is an effective strategy and obviously he's a big symptom of the GOP's problem, but that's not anywhere near the whole truth. There's far more rot in the Republican party than just one radio blowhard extremist and his tendrils. It's systematic, and sadly even the new leaders like Steele seem to get immediately infected -- hard -- by it. I'm not sure which direction this will cause the headless GOP to stagger off in, though sadly I guess we'll find out over time. A headless knight isn't going to score many victories in the arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 We have it's been rebutted, sorry my tone doesn't suit your delicate sensibilities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 it's been rebutted, sorry my tone doesn't suit your delicate sensibilities Actually not at all. But keep living in that Obama is God world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 We have And we intend to keep it that way. Liberty, a word of advice... Let go of the anger. It is not healthy and you will become even more bitter as time goes on. This was the advice that was given to me by a professor of political science at UVA - it was something that I took to heart and I realized he was right. I have my political leanings and enjoy a good debate, but that is all it is for me. For you, it seems very personal and that is with your preferred party in power (with the numbers to pass anything they desire). Hey, be happy. Just friendly advice. Oh, and the professor who gave me the advice? Maybe you've heard of him - Larry Sabato. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I would say they had an indirect debate for several years - budget battles and the like. Okay, lets say that Howard Dean was demanding a live TV debate with the then President Bush. I mean, after all, you could argue he was the leader of the Democratic Party if you want. And by your argument, that then entitles a person to a debate with the POTUS seemingly whenever they want, as long as they post it on the website and its fair. Correct? Your reaction would then be that they should debate, and in the future the POTUS should debate an opposition party leadership at their demand if the POTUS ever criticize them (which happens weekly). I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 But keep living in that Obama is God world hah I wish! though seriously you are one of the people I don't classify as a hack. so I am sorry if I have been prickly, but you have to understand that I believe the GOP has to be shamed until it becomes useful. Public dishonor kind of requires a harsh tone, so while I may sound like a troll I do believe that my tone does accomplish a small, but ultimately good thing. And honestly, I've always referred to Rush and other extreme right wingers this way, even the "old Liberty" was full of vitriol against certain things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Okay, lets say that Howard Dean was demanding a live TV debate with the then President Bush. I mean, after all, you could argue he was the leader of the Democratic Party if you want.And by your argument, that then entitles a person to a debate with the POTUS seemingly whenever they want, as long as they post it on the website and its fair. Correct? Your reaction would then be that they should debate, and in the future the POTUS should debate an opposition party leadership at their demand if the POTUS ever criticize them (which happens weekly). I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly. I know thats not the way it works, but that sounds pretty good to me. That would be a hell of a lot more useful than what passes as political discourse today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Then why does the White House feel it necessary to target him? I wouldn't waste my time with someone who is beneath me. Good. We're in agreement. A debate would be pointless; no grandstanding about "courage" is required; I'll pretend I didn't read the rest of your paragraph that I partially quoted above; and I thank you for your honesty. Oh, and the professor who gave me the advice? Maybe you've heard of him - Larry Sabato. Oh man! Larry Sabato! I love that guy in "Curb your Enthusiasm." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Okay, lets say that Howard Dean was demanding a live TV debate with the then President Bush. I mean, after all, you could argue he was the leader of the Democratic Party if you want.And by your argument, that then entitles a person to a debate with the POTUS seemingly whenever they want, as long as they post it on the website and its fair. Correct? Not just that but Bush would to debate on Dean's show where Dean's microphone was really loud and Bush was calling in by phone. And if Bush didn't accept it was obviously because he is a coward and not because the had Presidential things to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Think if he did though!? The possibilities boggle the mind! :saber: Would Rush be civil? Would Obama? I'm pretty sure he would but I think Rush would lose his cool though and start insulting him. Look at all the ammo Obama would have. And Rush has proven before that he let's his mouth get out a head sometimes. McNabb? I think it'd be a hoot but alas I also know it would degrade the office and he can't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.