I use to call people names quite a bit. Now I haven't done that very often. So let me correct myself. I don't know you well enough to say you are an idiot. That's not fair. But your post up there, that was an idiotic post. I mean, that post didn't make any sense. What is Obama hiding about his college papers???? The source was FAKE! it's like if i make up a story about you. Let's say I say MojoMan killed 30 people. Then everyone on this BBS starts saying what an awful person you are because you killed 30 people. Then I admit I just made it up. And then Basso says...yes, but how many people did he really kill, what is mojoman hiding? That's what you pulled!
You are really quick with the unfounded assertions, aren't you? I confirmed in my initial post in this thread that the quote recited by Limbaugh was false, and that Limbaugh corrected the record about that during the very same episode that he made the original statement. But what does that have to do with the fact that most of Barack Obama's personal records have been sealed, and that his thesis is no where to be found. Can you please provide me a link to Obama's thesis? If anyone had a copy, the whole thing would surely be online by now. But apparently it cannot be found. After seeing his wife's thesis, that is probably a good thing - for him. If this is the tone of the kinds of conversations that are routinely conducted in this forum, perhaps I have made a mistake by coming here. First you have inappropriately called me names. Now, you have wrongly called me a liar. Is this what passes for dialog around here? Are you so insecure about your perspectives on these issues that you immediately resort to personal attacks when you someone offers a position that offends your notions of "correctness"? I entered the D&D forum hoping for some lively intellectual dialog with a diverse group of people about politics and the popular issues of the day. I anticipated that there would be a basic expectation of considerate and mannerly behavior between the posters. In other words, attack the position, not the poster. This is pretty basic stuff. But apparently here in the D&D forum of Clutchfans, it is only something to hope for in the future, rather than something to take for granted today. It looks like you guys are just not there yet. I find that disappointing.
It is nice to see that Limbaugh retracted the statement, but it is telling that he was willing to start spreading rumors even when they hadn't been confirmed. This action points to Limbaugh being anti-Obama and willing to use anything he can to try and discredit this administration. I have a feeling that you would have difficulty finding any of the papers that I authored in college, even though I graduated much more recently than BO. As far as "personal records," do you believe that a sitting president has a right to the privacy of his records? Did you believe the same way when Bush was trying to keep his records under wraps? I guess I don't see why BO's thesis is relevant given that it is "no where to be found," which means that nobody even knows what it is about. In fact nobody knows IF such a document exists, but you sure are asking questions about whether it exists and what the contents are. If anyone had a copy, it surely would be online, but BO doesn't have any kind of obligation to provide such school papers, does he? Why are you so interested in a document that we aren't even sure exists? Your bias is pretty clear ("After seeing his wife's thesis..."), and you seem willing to pick up and run with the topics that Rush puts out there, so I would argue that this is the reason that your next sentence became necessary. If you bring a derogatory tone to a thread, you are likely to be called out for it. You asked about the contents of a thesis that we aren't sure exists at least in part because Rush Limbaugh put out a false story about such a thesis. Nobody was talking about it before Rush's comments on it, but now you seem pretty interested... IOW, if you check your bias and carry on thoughtful dialogue as is common with some of our conservative posters (refman), you can expect to be treated with dignity and respect, as refman generally is. If you act a fool, allow your biases to color your dialogue, and defend people like Rush Limbaugh, you can expect to be treated with disdain, as is common with some of our "conservative" posters (basso, bigtexxx). Some of us are, but you have to get past some bitterness that exists from being called terrorist sympathizers, Saddam lovers, and America haters for so long. In my experience, people who engage in thoughtful dialogue around here generally get the same in return.
I liked this David Brooks column, especially the bolded part, from a few weeks ago: Let us take a trip back into history. Not ancient history. Recent history. It is the winter of 2007. The presidential primaries are approaching. The talk jocks like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and the rest are over the moon about Fred Thompson. They’re weak at the knees at the thought of Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, they are hurling torrents of abuse at the unreliable deviationists: John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Yet somehow, despite the fervor of the great microphone giants, the Thompson campaign flops like a fish. Despite the schoolgirl delight from the radio studios, the Romney campaign underperforms. Meanwhile, Huckabee surges. Limbaugh attacks him, but social conservatives flock. Along comes New Hampshire and McCain wins! Republican voters have not heeded their masters in the media. Before long, South Carolina looms as the crucial point of the race. The contest is effectively between Romney and McCain. The talk jocks are now in spittle-flecked furor. Day after day, whole programs are dedicated to hurling abuse at McCain and everybody ever associated with him. The jocks are threatening to unleash their angry millions. Yet the imaginary armies do not materialize. McCain wins the South Carolina primary and goes on to win the nomination. The talk jocks can’t even deliver the conservative voters who show up at Republican primaries. They can’t even deliver South Carolina! So what is the theme of our history lesson? It is a story of remarkable volume and utter weakness. It is the story of media mavens who claim to represent a hidden majority but who in fact represent a mere niche — even in the Republican Party. It is a story as old as “The Wizard of Oz,” of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain. But, of course, we shouldn’t be surprised by this story. Over the past few years the talk jocks have demonstrated their real-world weakness time and again. Back in 2006, they threatened to build a new majority on anti-immigration fervor. Republicans like J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, both of Arizona, built their House election campaigns under that banner. But these two didn’t march to glory. Both lost their campaigns. In 2008, after McCain had won his nomination, Limbaugh turned his attention to the Democratic race. He commanded his followers to vote in the Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton because “we need Barack Obama bloodied up politically.” Todd Donovan of Western Washington University has looked at data from 38 states and could find no strong evidence that significant numbers of people actually did what Limbaugh commanded. Rush blared the trumpets, but few of his Dittoheads advanced. Over the years, I have asked many politicians what happens when Limbaugh and his colleagues attack. The story is always the same. Hundreds of calls come in. The receptionists are miserable. But the numbers back home do not move. There is no effect on the favorability rating or the re-election prospects. In the media world, he is a giant. In the real world, he’s not. But this is not merely a story of weakness. It is a story of resilience. For no matter how often their hollowness is exposed, the jocks still reweave the myth of their own power. They still ride the airwaves claiming to speak for millions. They still confuse listeners with voters. And they are aided in this endeavor by their enablers. They are enabled by cynical Democrats, who love to claim that Rush Limbaugh controls the G.O.P. They are enabled by lazy pundits who find it easier to argue with showmen than with people whose opinions are based on knowledge. They are enabled by the slightly educated snobs who believe that Glenn Beck really is the voice of Middle America. So the myth returns. Just months after the election and the humiliation, everyone is again convinced that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest possess real power. And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it. They mistake media for reality. They pre-emptively surrender to armies that don’t exist. They pay more attention to Rush’s imaginary millions than to the real voters down the street. The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy. The rise of Beck, Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and the rest has correlated almost perfectly with the decline of the G.O.P. But it’s not because the talk jocks have real power. It’s because they have illusory power, because Republicans hear the media mythology and fall for it every time. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opinion/02brooks.html
he does outright deny being the leader of the republican party, but i have heard him claim on more than one occasion that he is the leader of the conservative movement. it is interesting though that whenever republican leaders dare say anything critical of him they invariably end up on his show apologizing/groveling. who controls who???
That's right. Limbaugh does not identify himself as a Republican at all. In fact, he does not seem to even like the Republican party all that much.
that is a great column Buck. thanks for posting. its not that rush is the leader, the party is leaderless. one thing I will say though is that the more forward think posters in this forum have been sayin what the column is saying all along. the longer the GOP caters to the Rush's and the Hannitys, the more it will eat its own self
come on now! he claims he is not a republican leader, but dont try and say he is not one. do you honestly think he is not voting straight ticket repub?
Who said you made it up? Are there papers proving that you created said fabrication? THINKIN CAPS PEOPLE.
No, I think he will vote for many Republicans but not all Republicans. He will support conservative candidates, and he will oppose non-conservative candidates. For example, he did not support John McCain for President this last year. Rush Limbaugh would like to see the Republican party consistently embrace conservative principles, because this is the best alternative available for promoting and implementing a conservative agenda. To the extent that the Republicans fail to pursue that, they are worthless and not worthy of being supported. Personally, I agree with all of that. In an interesting move this last week, Sarah Palin endorsed Doug Hoffman, a conservative-minded independent, for the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional district. She endorsed Hoffman over a left-leaning Republican nominee for the seat, Dede Scozzafava. Needless to say, the Republican part is probably not very please with this move. Palin has taken the lead and has set the stage for more endorsements of this type. Personally, I regard the Republican party as a tool to be used. It is a political wrapper for conservatism. If it fails to serve that function in certain instances, then it is perfectly appropriate to use a different tool that will work in the expected way. If the Republicans are going to embrace the "Democrat Lite" philosophy, as George W. Bush frequently did, then who needs them. I hope they loose every race where they try to do that and where there is a better conservative candidate in the race.
Conservative. Most conservatives do not identify all that closely with the Republican party these days. Personally, I have not called myself a Republican since 1990. I am a conservative. That is it.
I didn't call you a liar. And it's not about correctness, it's about ludicrous thinking. I mean, you just don't make any sense there. What on earth do you care about Obama's thesis? Don't you see you are on an endless witchhunt to prove the guy is a villian? I mean, you will want to see every paper, article, and maybe what he wrote in the 5th grade to find some sort of commie propaganda right? Sealed? What's sealed? Obama has had so much dirty laundry aired out there and yet you still want his college papers????? I mean, all the controversy has been called a bunch of horse dodo anyway by non-partisan analysts. I'm just sick and tired of this stuff. It's like Bush having done coke. Who really cares? Who cares if Bush was a screw-up in college? Who cares what Obama wrote about....but if you need to check his college paper based on a rumor that was clearly false, you got something else going on.
I just have one simple question: why? Why in the hell do you need to see his thesis? Why in the hell does anyone need to see his thesis other than the people determining whether he should get his degree or not? Why does it matter?! What a colossal waste of time. This is equivalent to the "birther" movement. Focusing on unimportant things instead of actual debate is unintelligent and unfocused. Insulting his wife's thesis was a real pro move though. That really sticks it to him.
so did he vote for obama or bob barr? im really looking forward to this 'conservative party' - its going to be a real riot! these next few election cycles are going to be very interesting. i think at this rate the republican party could be no more significant than the green party. and on the flip-side, obama is playing to the center to such a degree that we could also see the rise of a 'liberal party' too.
