Radio talker Rush Limbaugh said on Fox News Sunday that President Barack Obama has a big ego. This is a subject that Limbaugh has some expertise in.
"I think he's got an out-of-this-world ego," said Limbaugh. "He's very narcissistic. And he's able to focus all attention on him all the time. That description is simply a way to cut through the noise and say he's immature, inexperienced, in over his head."
The AP reported that Obama adviser David Axelrod responded for the administration.
"I think it's a surreal day when you're getting lectures on humility from Rush Limbaugh. ... The fact is that he is an entertainer. The president has to run the country," Axelrod said.
"We walked into a difficult situation..." Obama advisor, David Axelrod, CBS, "Face the Nation." BTW, that’s lib-speak for, "it’s Bush’s fault." Same old, tiresome, lib line!
Interesting that Axelrod attacked the messenger, not the substance of Limbaugh’s differences with the Obama administration.
T.C., are you saying the previous administration is blameless?
While I can't comment on Obama's ego, there is no doubt that he is inexperienced and in over his head.
I continue to be amazed at how a high school-educated radio entertainer gets these liberals' pants in such a wad. I can't imagine why they would get upset if Rush was plainly wrong. Their responses have the affect of validating his claims. Clearly, a telling reaction from liberal wizards of smart.
Alas, Rush has got Obama pegged. It's a different time but the same refrain - the emperor is wearing no clothes!
In this case the truth, which has only one author, was revealed through RL, not by him.
Not at all, but eminently more qualified and honest.
Whiners who have a lot to hide. Rush is a private citizen representing himself and an ego is fine. Obama is not a private citizen, but trying to act the part of a president, although badly mis-cast and ego is not acceptable as a public entity. Obama has quickly proven he has NO leadership skills but is a supreme narcissist.
I think there is a term for what Rush is doing. It's called projecting. A textbook case. He should probably get some help for all of his underlying issues, drug habits and all, before he so courageously leads his flock of blind followers into doing something hideous and regretful. Oh wait, too late. It can only get worse.
We need a little perspective here: For all of your complaints about Limbaugh and a perceived drug problem, let’s remember that our president, in his youthful years, was an admitted cocaine user.
You seem to be fearful (being a "compassionate conservative," I am deeply distressed that you are obsessing on your fears) that Limbuagh will "lead his flock of blind followers into doing something hideous and regretful..." 20 years of talk radio and not one incident of the advocacy of violence or inappropriate behavior. Can we say the same about Obama’s cadre of community organizers: Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and convicted terrorist William Ayers?
"20 years of talk radio and not one incident of the advocacy of violence or inappropriate behavior."
Are you claiming that Limbaugh never advocated torture or that torture is appropriate?
Are you claiming that Limbaugh never excused the abuses at Abu Ghraib or that those abuses were appropriate?
Are you claiming that Limbaugh never dreamed of riots in Denver or that riots in Denver would be appropriate?
Before asking what we can say about Obama's cadre, how about getting the facts straight about the kinds of behaviors Limbaugh advocates?
By the way, Bill Ayers was never tried much less convicted. The case against him was dropped after the Nixon administration's "illegal activities, including wiretaps, break-ins and mail interceptions," were exposed (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/13/nation/na-ayers13).
Seriously, Mike? You try to convict Limbaugh for actions he never advocated or participated in, and excuse Ayers for terrorist activity because he was never convicted? You do know that Ayers acknowledges his terrorist actions and regrets not doing more? Wow, you have a seriously twisted perspective!
Seriously Jen? I didn't excuse Ayers. I pointed out the error in TC Morgan's description. It would have been more accurate of Mr. Morgan to describe Ayers as a self-admitted terrorist than as a convicted terrorist. The fact is that Ayers was not convicted, so describing him that way is a mistake and pointing out that mistake does not constitute an excuse. Don't ignore the facts and then accuse others of having twisted perspectives.
As for Limbaugh, he claimed that torture works saying that it worked against John McCain. He said that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were acceptable instances of soldiers "blowing off steam" and he spent much of last summer dreaming about riots in Denver during the DNC. So there are instances of Limbaugh advocating violence and inappropriate behavior.
Perhaps you would like to quibble over the definition of advocacy, maybe show me how what applies to Wright, Sharpton and Jackson doesn't apply to Limbaugh because he gets a pass? Or maybe you would like to explain to me how prisoner abuse, torture and openly wishing for a riot in an American city are appropriate behaviors?
Mike will you take a minute and illustrate for us your connection to Abu Ghraib? Tell us why that incident is still being processed by you. Are you an Iraqi War veteran? Did you know prisoners that were abused? Why you would bring that up now? Was your property misused by soldiers? Tell us why you believe that point is so useful in expressing your personal distaste of RL. He was not there nor did he know anyone mentioned in the story. RL knows when he has a real interest in an issue and you obviously do not, that's all. There was certainly a problem with what occurred at the AG Prison but it was not RL. He was one of the few who spoke in the interest of US foreign policy by not amplifying the issue to levels beyond reason just as you are doing here.
Jen...Glenn Beck's "Arguing with Idiots"...is a useful tool for...arguing with idiots(if you've got nothing better to do).It's a good read even if you don't want to...argue with idiots.I think this week with the special election Tuesday and the folks in D.C. on Thursday(in regards to the health bill)will signal if there is reason for "Change and Hope"...Thanks for the brief interlude of sanity...you seem to be non-disingenuous and that is greatly appreciated.
Mike-
You're usually just wrong about Limbaugh so I generally don't comment on your blatherings. But your most recent post is just delusional.
Rush never advocated torture. By the way I would not consider water boarding torture and this technique seems to be what the leftist loons are upset about. Rush, to my knowledge, never opposed it, but he never advocated it either. Torture is what the Taliban does- electric shock, gouging eyes, cigarette burns, etc. Having someone convinced they're being drowned without actually drowning them is not torture. It's scary, but not torture.
Abu Ghraib was humiliation but not abuse. I saw most of the stories on Abu Ghraib and would not have prosecuted any of the guards there. In the context of war, Abu Ghraib is nothing. It's curious none of the leftists were outraged by Al Qaeda beheading a journalist (now that's torture), but are apopletic because some terrorists bent on killing as many Americans as possible were humiliated.
I listen to Rush, among others, fairly frequently and never heard him advocate riots in Denver. I never heard any references of this alleged statement on CNN, CBS, or ABC either and if he said it they would have mentioned it.
Finally, we all get it that you have an irrational hatred of this radio entertainer. But if you want to criticize him, why not try things he's actually done, ie multiple marriages, oxycotin abuse, etc.
The prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib is simply a point of fact in this context. I pointed to it as an instance of violence and inappropriate behavior. What Limbaugh said about the abuse -- "You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/06/opinion/meyer/main616021.shtml) -- refutes the claim of "20 years of talk radio and not one incident of the advocacy of violence or inappropriate behavior." He made excuses for the abuses. Making excuses is what advocates do. How many incidents of advocacy of violence or inappropriate behavior occurred during those 20 years? I don't know, but it was more than not one so the claim is false.
I also asked about torture and riots and later made claims about things Limbaugh said in regard to those subjects. Why did you not ask me about those? Does it bother you that I brought up Abu Ghraib? Why is that?
Waterboarding constitutes torture regardless of what you think, but as far as the argument I'm making goes, your views on waterboarding are irrelevant.
Limbaugh claimed that torture works, saying that it worked against John McCain. "The idea that torture doesn't work, that's been put out from John McCain on down. McCain for the longest time said torture didn't work, and then he admitted in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last summer that he was broken by the North Vietnamese, so what are we to think here?" (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041709/content/01125109.guest.html). Proclaiming that a practice works is what advocates do. Claiming that a crime isn't a crime is what criminals do. That's something you ought to think about.
Regarding Abu Ghraib, see my response to Mr. Turnipseed. Are you claiming that humiliating prisoners is appropriate behavior? Why are you trying to change the subject? Does this subject make you uncomfortable?
Limbaugh dreamed about riots in Denver during the DNC. "Riots in Denver at the Democratic Convention would see to it we don't elect Democrats. And that's best damn thing that could happen for this country, as far as anything I can think." (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/25/sitroom.01.html). CNN did mention it. Proclaiming that an event would be the best thing ever is what advocates do. Limbaugh was cheering for a riot.
I set out to refute the claim "20 years of talk radio and not one incident of the advocacy of violence or inappropriate behavior." I pointed to three examples where Limbaugh advocated support for violence and inappropriate behavior.
As I said to Jen, perhaps you would like to quibble over the definition of advocacy, maybe show me how what applies to Wright, Sharpton and Jackson doesn't apply to Limbaugh because he gets a pass? Is what Limbaugh says beyond criticism?
If I respected your opinion it might bother me. Just another example of irrational remote interest and pretending knoweledge of a subject you know little about.
Mike-
The examples you use do not support your points. If I take you at your word, I would conclude the following from your quotes:
1. With Mc Cain, Limbaugh simply identified a contradiction in his position on torture. No where in the quote you presented does Limbaugh endorse torture. I think Limbaugh was wondering whate are we to think about Mc Cain's opposition to torture (not waterboarding or humiliation) when he confirmed it worked on him. Limbaugh was not a fan on Mc Cain's and regularly pointed out contradictions in his policies during 2008.
2. In the context of a war where people are trying to kill as many Americans as possible I do not think humiliating your enemy is inappropriate behavior. Chopping off a journalist's head on television I think is inappropriate behavior. What say you? By the way, do you realize that no middle east terrorist has ever released a US soldier alive? We always find them beheaded in a river somewhere. Doesn't that make Abu Ghraib pale in comparison?
3. With respect to Denver, Limbaugh was saying that the best damn thing that could happen to the country is if Democrats were not elected. I think subsequent events have proved him right, a situation that yesterday's elections are in the process of correcting.
Your examples do not demonstrate anything except an irrational disagreement with Mr. Limbaugh- a radio entertainer who cannot force anything on anyone. Now Obama- well that's a different story.
Mike...I tried to organize Americans for Torture,Humiliation and Riots against our enemies but the Tea Parties got traction so I gave it up to join them and let the Democrats take it and flip it 180 so as to own it as their policies have furthered more torturing of civilians and public humiliation of American soldiers and civilians by Islamic-facists.Meanwhile most riots worldwide are against their policies and those they support by people who want truth and freedom. Boy,did you pick the wrong team.
"The second Geneva Convention in 1907 extended protection to wounded armed forces at sea and to shipwreck victims. The third convention in 1929 detailed the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The fourth convention in 1949 revised the previous conventions and addressed the rights of civilians in times of war. This convention is said to be the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law. It was amended in 1977 with two protocols that further protect civilians during wartime and address armed conflicts within a nation. The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977." (Source MSN search engine)
Not only took it 70 years for the United Sates to ratify the Geneva Convention, but the United Sates rejected to ratify the protection of civilians during wartime. Hundreds of thousands civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan are victims of that refusal to ratify that part of the Geneva protocol of 1977. The United States had signed the Red Cross protocols, but they cannot be enforced until ratified by Congress. Here we would see the word "disingenuous " applied correctly. (ed.)
GENEVA PROTOCOL continued:
1. “[T]he right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.” (Article 35, para. 1)
2. “It is prohibited to employ weapons (…) and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury.” (Article 35, para. 2)
3. Civilians and civilian objects must not to be the target of attack (Articles 48, 50 and 52); these articles set out the principle of the distinction between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives.
— civilians do not constitute a military danger and must be respected and humanely treated;
— captured combatants and persons who have laid down their arms no longer represent any danger and must be respected; they shall be handed over to the immediate military hierarchical superior; killing such persons constitutes a crime and is absolutely forbidden; subjecting them or threatening to subject them to ill-treatment" (Source: MSN search engine)
I am one of those weird people who would consider waterboarding ill treatment. I would consider putting a leash around a prisoner's neck und and making him crawl like a dog ill treatment and not just letting off a little harmless steam. If my neighbor abused three people, but I have abused only one, that does not make me any less an abuser. And I also know that citing the Geneva Protocol on this blog is a waste of time. And it is a blessing that this blog is not mainstream America.
Bravo! Human decency perseveres!
Knock em back push em back go team go!
The examples I cited illustrate incidents where Limbaugh give voice to support for violence and inappropriate behavior.
1. In that quote Limbaugh challenges "the idea that torture doesn't work" and uses McCain as the counter example to show that it does work. In the sentences preceding that quote Limbaugh cites former CIA director Michael Hayden to bolster the claim that torture works for gathering intelligence. Limbaugh may have used the opportunity to zing McCain (6 months after his loss to Obama), but that entire portion of Limbaugh's show was devoted to defending the use of torture. As I wrote before, making claims about what works is what advocates do.
2. To confirm, you think that in war humiliating prisoners is appropriate behavior. And you think that the horrific things that terrorists do justify the horrific things U.S. forces do. Did your parents never tell you that the wrongs that others do offer no justification for your own bad behaviors? Just asking...
3. Limbaugh didn't need to wish for a riot to voice his opposition to electing Democrats, but he did wish for a riot. Why did he wish for a riot in an American city? And why do you give him a pass for voicing such hopes? Would you also give a pass to Wright, Sharpton or Jackson if one of them had openly wished for a riot in Minneapolis during the RNC? I don't think you would.
Reasonable Scenario: There is definitive evidence that three subjects who are all known are about to detonate a bomb with the potential to disperse a deadly biological agent at an unknown school.
You have one in custody, one fatally shot by police, the third on the lamb in apparent possession of the device whos exact location is unknown.
What do we do Mike?
Sorry Mike ... Leave it to a conservative (Bart) to cut to the chase!
What will ya do, Mike?
And please don't cop out with ..."It's just a hypothetical situation..." (Our troops are up against situations like this all the time).
Mike-
1. You didn't include your further clarification in your reference. It seems disingenuous to reference it now. Also, as I've referenced earlier, Limbaugh was referring to the looney notion that water boarding was torture. I know you're trying to set the bar so low that a dirty look will qualify as "torture", but no one is buying it.
2. Two wrongs don't make a right in civil society. Humiliation does not equal torture or abuse during war. By the way, you are strangely silent about the beheaded journalist. In know- it was Bush's fault.
3.I'm glad to hear you acknowledge that Limbaugh did not advocate a riot in Denver.
Lastly, let me guess. In the scenario that Bart describes you would read the terrorist his Miranda rights, make sure that no questioning occurred during a Muslim holiday, and get a UN and ACLU attorney to approve any questions asked during the interrogation.
Additional research on the member nations of the Geneva Protocol 0f 1977
"States party to the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols
Geneva Conventions of August 1949 and the Additional Protocols of June 1977 Geneva Conventions..." (International Red Cross)
Samples of nations ratified protocol
Austria 1982
Australia 1991
Bahamas 1980
Czech Republic 1993
Congo 1983
Canada 1990
Denmark 1982
Finland 1980
Germany 1991
Ireland 1999
United Kingdom 1998
***************************************
Samples of nations not ratified protocol
India
Indonesia
Haity
Iran
Iraq
Fiji
Korea
Mexico
Syria
Turkey
United States........Reader must now draw his/her own conclusions.
The conclusion that I draw from the excerpted list of signatories to the Geneva Conventions is that the list of those who signed the conventions are comprised of nations that rely on the USA, who is included as a non-signatory, to maintain peace around the world. It is easy to sign high-minded documents when you are relying on someone else to protect you from yourself and the rest of the world.
The European Union needs no protection from the US but the US needs EU consent to maintain military bases within the EU.
Today, the greatest threat to world peace is the US Military/Industrial Complex (so discussed by former President Eisenhower, the highest ranking US general.) By the way, Turkey has not been accepted as a EU member for refusing to repeal certain inhumane laws. Advocates of torture should feel comfortable in Turkey. But this is digressing far too much from the given topic, and should, therefore, end right here. The fault is mostly mine, I should have never introduced the Geneva Protocol.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_water_bridge.htm If you want to see something that is boggling the mind, and what the EU spends money on. I give you a hint. It is a navigable river bridge over the River Elbe. It boggled my mind when I saw it.
If you don't respect my opinion why ask me?
In an imaginary scenario call an imaginary hero: Got a ticking time bomb? Call Jack Bauer! Why do you assume that torture is the only way to get the information? If our troops are up against situations like that all the time, as TC Morgan claims, why trot out an imaginary scenario instead of an actual case? It seems to me that if such cases existed then Dick Cheney would have declassified at least one of them in order to bolster his argument in favor of torturing suspected terrorists. Where are those accounts?
This is kind of an aside, but I don't understand how folks who parade themselves as anti-fascist in one context, can turn around in another context and argue in support of using fascist torture techniques on criminal suspects. The discrepancy suggests those folks aren't really anti-fascist but just want to look that way to avoid suspicion. Can you explain this discrepancy another way?
1. Limbaugh's remarks speak for themselves. Like you he mistakenly refuses to accept the fact that waterboarding is torture.
2. Let me get this straight, you're saying that morality is relative to the situation and that in war we should judge the morality of our behavior relative to the behavior of terrorists so that their evil justifies our evil.
I said nothing about the beheaded journalist because that case has no bearing on Limbaugh's remarks and because your reference was vague. Were you referring to Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg or some other poor soul? Neither man was beheaded on television as you claim, although I suppose I can extend some kindness and give you a pass for mistaking youtube for television.
3. Limbaugh went out of his way to wish for a riot in Denver as the means to the end he wants. That's advocacy.
As for Bart's scenario, see my response to Bart.
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." (Sometimes attributed to Orwell or Churchill, origin in dispute).
America is at war. Terrorism demands, a swift and fierce reprisal. Only the vigilant and strong can prevent terrorism. The weak and the compromising will always be easy prey for despotic and totalitarian rulers.
Mr. Caetano-
1. Waterboarding is not torture. It is an effective way, at least in one crucial case, to get information from those who would kill you.
2. There is no morality in war, it is the most abhorrent activity of mankind. In war there is only winning or losing.
3. Your Denver example is such a stretch that it is nonsensical.
BTW, I agree that Rush has a big ego. So what???
America is at war and yet you defend a man who vociferously and repeatedly declares that he wants the President to fail. If the threat to America is as great as you make it out to be, shouldn't you be demanding that Limbaugh rally behind the President? If the threat from terrorism is so great that America must abandon longstanding prohibitions against torturing prisoners, then how is it that America can afford the luxury of allowing Limbaugh to give voice to such dissent?
If there is no morality in war, but only winning and loosing, why did the Americans initiate the Nuremberg Trials? I am not going to moralize on the morality of war with anyone on this blog. There appears to be little passion on either side of the two main correspondents; Mr. Ceatano and Mr. Feldon; only an apparent desire to win the ongoing argument. If there is no morality in war, but only winning and loosing, again; why did the Americans initiate the Nuremberg Trials? If Mr. Feldon were right it should have been shrugged off: C'est la guerre!
But I was there when the series of trials were held held in Nurnberg Germany, in 1945–46, in which former Nazi leaders were indicted and tried as war criminals by the Military Tribunal. The indictment lodged against them 1. crimes against peace (i.e., the planning, initiating, and waging of wars of aggression in violation of international treaties and agreements), (2) crimes against humanity war crimes (i.e., violations of the laws of war), and “a common plan or conspiracy to commit” the criminal acts listed..
Then according to the US led trials, there are laws of war...Those laws of war have not changed for the worse, The Geneva protocol of 1977 is living proof of that; only Americans may have changed, if we were to accept Mr. Feldon and his defense of prisoner abuse as mainstream America. But as I have said before, fortunately he is not. He is free to believe and say that waterboarding is not prisoner abuse. The Comite international de la Croix-Rouge (International Red Cross)millions of decent Americans and I say that it is prisoner abuse. And I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. Is that why I am considered a lib? I do not identify with organized political factions, I identify with causes. Wow! I wish I were paid per word...hahaha!
Most libs equate - as you do - wanting Obama to fail (a good thing) with wanting America to fail (a bad thing). Nobody - except liberals wants America to fail. What Obama wants - in my opinion - will be disastrous for America, but good for the cause of totalitarianism. Obamaism (liberalism / socialism) is all about the transference of wealth and the destruction of liberty.
Conservatives on the other hand want the best for America. They believe in the freedom of thought, speech and religion; the free exchange of ideas as well as a limited and transparent government, with minimal regulatory powers, while "conserving" the traditional institutions, social structures & Judeo-Christian foundations handed down from our Founders.
Mike,
Why would a person want the President's policies to succeed if he/she honestly believes the implementation of those policies will be harmful to the nation? I want the COUNTRY to succeed; I'm not interested in Obama's (or any other president's) personal success at the expense of the nation.
Waterboarding has been considered torture dating back to the Spanish Inquisition. It's an effective way to generate false confessions in support of political agendas.
I agree that war is the most abhorrent activity of mankind. I also agree with George Washington that there is morality in war: "While we are contending for our own Liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men, and to him only in this Case, they are answerable." [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28gw030362%29%29].
What is nonsensical is giving Limbaugh a pass for saying things that you wouldn't give Wright, Sharpton or Jackson a pass for saying.
I agree that Limbaugh has a big ego. I say so what to that as well. Limbaugh's ego is only at issue because he chose to attack the President on that basis.
Don't worry Mike, all the hypothetical chidren are safe.
Your comments are specious. When Rush states that he wants Obama to fail, he hopes that the public and Congress reject his policy initiatives. Why would a conservative want a liberal president's liberal policy initiatives to succeed? I would expect no less from liberals if there were a conservative president in office. The liberals certainly opposed Bush on Iraq, tax cuts, supreme court appointments, etc. I doubt that you "rallied" around former President Bush (GW).
If Obama's policy goals include enacting cap and trade and socialized health care legislation, raising taxes on the so-called wealthy, appointing liberal judges, scaling back on the war on terrorism, increasing the power of unions, among other things, then yes, I want him to fail. In my opinion, his failure along those lines is good for America. Rush's opposition and my opposition is the highest form of patriotism; we want what we believe to be in America's best interests.
While you leftists have an irrational obsession with Rush, unlike what your last sentence implies, he is not a threat to America. Islamic terrorists are, yet you and your liberal cronies treat Fox News and Rush as if they present a greater danger. Obama will talk with Iran without preconditions but refuses to do the same with Fox News. I hope you enjoy Barry's leftist administration over the next few years. The other day's elections signalled that Republicans will make strides in 2010 and will have a solid chance of ending Barry's presidency in 2012, unless perhaps the Democrats succeed in making 15,000,000 illegals into citizens and loyal Democrats before then.
Mike...why do you feel so threatened by talk show hosts?They can't declare war,raise your taxes,control your pay or force their beliefs and policies on you...so why get your panties in a bunch.
Isabell-
By winning we were able to have the Nuremberg trials. If we lost, we'd all be speaking Japanese or German. My point is that the winner dictates the terms of peace and that is what matters.
Mr. Feldon, I repeat, you are free to believe anything you want. But it seems that I, the foreign born, have a higher opinion of American conscience than you do. But that is not the nitty-gritty of it, but your need to win any argument . OK! You win!
Brian, do you embrace talk show hosts for their skills at making threats? or do you relish their lack of power? And did you stop developing argumentation skills in the fourth grade?
When Bush was President his fans were always quick to point out that we were at war and needed to support the Commander in Chief. Now we find out that they only believe that when their guy is President. If the Commander in Chief fails in the war, then America fails in the war. It's pretty simple and something conservatives used to readily grasp. Limbaugh and his fans want America to fail. They hope that in that failure Americans will turn to them for guidance, like an abused woman returning to a bad relationship. Conservatives have no love for freedom of thought or religion and would gladly shut down those who disagree with them or who dare say controversial things. Remember Ward Churchill? Conservatives had no problem shutting him down for daring to share his thoughts. Transparent government? Conservatives had no problem going along with unprecedented levels of secrecy during the Bush administration. Remember all that clap trap about the "unitary executive"? Conservatives have no problem with an Imperial President, in fact, it's at the top of their wish list - so long as the emperor plays on their team and pushes their rules...
Mike beyond the first sentence, that is the most desparately hollow assessment of political reality in America I ever read. The fact is that in Obama's case, his psyche is not politically programed to tolerate a healthy executive. Community organizers always target the executive with their own clap trap about unity, the struggle, bringing down the man...yawn.
You seem to have difficulty distinguishing questions from statements. My questions were in regard to the war. Your litany of policy objections barely acknowledges that. Do you want President Obama to fail in the war too?
The threat to America from Islamic Terrorists is not as great as you make it out to be. If it was you'd still be demanding everyone get in line behind the President, just like after 9/11.
America wins when it acts according to it's ideals. That means letting fools like Limbaugh and Beck spread misinformation over the radio everyday. It also means not torturing prisoners.
Obama is hardly a leftist. A leftist wouldn't fuss with appeasing obstructionists in Congress while letting the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry continue looting the public.
Tuesday's elections signaled nothing of the sort. Republicans lost a seat in the House. But who knows, maybe another Republican Secretary of State can rig the 2012 election to restore the GOP to the White House.
Mike...everything I needed to know I had figured out by kindergarten.I don't need talk show hosts(they get paid), the internet(they get paid) or the media(they get paid)to shape my thoughts and beliefs.I don't assume anything or take anything personal while trying to do my best.What's your take on making life meaningful...you seem unhappy and that's not good for anyone.
Given Obama's indecisiveness regarding Afghanistan, it will not be the conservatives who cost him that war.
Conservatives abhor freedom of speech for the other side? This from the guy who wants to silence Fox News and conservative talk radio. When have conservatives tried to quash free speech? (Please see my Ward Churchill discussion below.) It certainly does not occur on college campuses. College campuses are mired in liberal groupthink. Yet, liberal students constantly attempt to disrupt conservative free speech on campus. You can confirm that by researching how many conservative speakers have been attacked on campus or had their speeches disrupted by liberal protestors.
Conservatives have no love for freedom of religion? Upon what do you base such an assertion? Conservatives actually support and believe in the robust practise of religion, including one's right to do so publicly. On the other hand, liberals constantly attack religion (especially in the public sphere), unless, of course, we are dealing with the "Religion of Peace" which fueled the shooting at Fort Hood yesterday.
By the way, conservatives did not seek to "shut down" that cretin, Ward Churchill. Conservatives did exercise their free speech rights by pointing out his very disturbing views regarding 9/11 victims. His views understandably disturbed many people (though apparently not you). That is the sort of backlash Churchill's radical ideas should invite, at least in the marketplace of ideas.
Was the adverse employment decision by the University of Colorado (hardly a conservative bastion) against Churchill pretextual based on his views or was it based on issues of plagiarism in his academic work? Liberal academics and administrators from the University who took the adverse employment action against him (not a mob of conservatives) thought the latter. I believe the jury ultimately determined it was the former. (But, as I recall, no damages were awarded.) However, again, conservatives did not shut him down as you allege.
Ward Churchill?? Wasn’t he demon possessed or something?
Mike-
You really are sounding desperate.
Lol! Not quite but I can understand why you might think that. His remarks were unsavory and I completely understand why many people were angry with him.
Kindergarten? That figures.
To the impatient thoughtfulness appears as indecisiveness.
I did not say that Fox News should be silenced. I said that Fox News should be recognized as a political operation not journalism. Fox News is GOP-TV. Why does that obvious fact scare you so much?
Ward Churchill wrote a distasteful essay that made him the target of a witch hunt that eventually led to him losing his job. The backlash against him is only one example of the disdain that conservatives have for free speech. I could have pointed to Bill Maher, the Dixie Chicks, Cat Stevens, Al Jazeera or many other examples. I find it telling that you spent so many words attempting to refute one sentence, as if the mere mention of Ward Churchill sent you into a tizzy.