Dirty Forums - Limbaugh

Dirty Forums (https://www.borndirty.org/forums/index.php)

- world. (https://www.borndirty.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24)

- - Limbaugh (https://www.borndirty.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9830)

GOOD MOURNING EVERYONE!!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by //\/\/ (Post 109262)

oh, fuck off.

You'll need to send your picture first. I'll think about it.

my god i'm giddy. :):):):):):):):)

So where were we? Oh yeah. limbaugh. Read this and see if this isn't surprising to you as well. Its from David Frum.

Quote:

On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him. And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush's every rancorous word—we'll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279?from=rss

Not surprising that its from David Frum. It makes perfect sense. Its surprising that people would buy into this "life long republican facing reality" shit. Rush is not a walking stereotype of self-indulgence. As above described he's a walking stereotype of corporate republicans. One of whom David Frum personally helped groom and foster. So we're expected to feel all nostalgic for the party of "buckley" after his own kid gets booted off the national review for endorsing obama? This from a bush speech writer, coiner of the phrase axis of bad guys, and wants "evil" removed from the world: ie non republicans. looks like a natural progression from frum to rush, and it smacks of cynicism to posture oneself as above it, let alone plead innocent of it.

Honestly Ron paul summed up the situation best: "sad."

Rush needs to up his meds, IMO ;)

quote:

In November 2006, Vanity Fair published an article by David Rose that listed a number of "the [Iraq] War's remorseful proponents," those erstwhile supporters of invading Iraq who had shifted their views and/or withdrawn their support of the Bush administration after the situation in Iraq steadily worsened. These included Perle, [COLOR=#001EE6]Kenneth Adelman[/COLOR], [COLOR=#4A2387]Michael Rubin[/COLOR], [COLOR=#4A2387]Michael Ledeen[/COLOR], [COLOR=#001EE6]Eliot Cohen[/COLOR], [COLOR=#001EE6]Frank Gaffney[/COLOR], and Frum. Rose reported that, "To David Frum ... it now looks as if defeat may be inescapable, because 'the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them.'"16
But Frum took issue with the magazine’s characterization of his views, proclaiming in the Huffington Post that there was "nothing remorseful" about his views. "It's true I fear that there is a real danger that the United States will lose in Iraq. And yes I do blame a lot that has gone wrong on failures of U.S. policy." Nevertheless, he said, "My most fundamental views on the war in Iraq remain as they were in 2003: The war was right, victory is essential, and defeat would be calamitous."17

i guess this is my point.

We are in agreement that the republican party is being run by demagogues, like rush, who are garnering power by emotional persuasion and thuggery.

We are in agreement that the neo cons and the bush administration sat around complacent while these same demagogues fended off imminent political defeat from facts and logic with passion and the manipulation of people's base fears/desires.

And now that such strategy didn't ultimately keep them in power and now has run its course into a distasteful spectacle of lay anger, now its something to from which they must keep their distance, condemn, and lament about the old days when republicans had an intellectual dimension and college graduates actually bought into the reagan = jesus bull shit.

just all seems patently disengenuous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deckard (Post 109239)

I know it's not high-minded behaviour by the Democratic party but I struggle to feel bad about it. I think the election was a turning point, the whole Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, "real americans" campaign deserves to be placed under the spotlight. The conventional political wisdom has always been that you don't draw attention to figures like Rush for fear of elevating their importance, so this eighty stone gorilla in the room (literally 80st gorilla in his case!) is awkwardly and somewhat misleadingly ignored while people only recognize the more measured or more politically established figures. There are certainly intelligent and intellectual figures in the conservative movement and the Republican party specifically, but aren't we kidding ourselves if we try to say that they make up the driving force of supporters, the "grass roots"? Perhaps the same argument could be used about the Dems. I don't know. I certainly can't fault the idea that, in terms of grass root numbers, Limbaugh really does seem to be the emotional leader of the GOP - plenty of senior Republican figures have said as much. For me, the crux is that given the way that whole grass roots idea was so central to the campaign against Obama for the last 12 months, sanctioned on high from the GOP, given the whole "Rush's Americans are the real American" tactic - I think they frankly deserve to be called on this.

I guess that what I question is this:

Yes, the "grass-roots" conservative movement seems to be the Rush Limbaugh crowd rather than the intelligent and intellectual figures in the Republican Party. I mean hell, they even tried to make the word "intellectual" a dirty word during the campaign, which was extremely telling. But do they just seem to be the grass-roots portion of the party because they're the most marginalized at the moment, and as a result the most vocal? My fear is that taking this broad, aggressive approach of labeling Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party might damage some potential relationships that could be formed with the intelligent and intellectual members of the party.

So I really don't know. On the one hand, a huge portion of the conservative crowd does deserve to fall under this Rush Limbaugh umbrella, but I hope it's not at the expense of alienating the ones who don't.

Man, I'm horny.

Could one of you hook me up with one of Rush's tramps?

I see that you're "final post" idea only lasted a couple minutes.

Re-posting my last entry since jOHN has tried to subvert this tread yet again...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deckard (Post 109239)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 109326)

I guess that what I question is this:
Yes, the "grass-roots" conservative movement seems to be the Rush Limbaugh crowd rather than the intelligent and intellectual figures in the Republican Party. I mean hell, they even tried to make the word "intellectual" a dirty word during the campaign, which was extremely telling. But do they just seem to be the grass-roots portion of the party because they're the most marginalized at the moment, and as a result the most vocal? My fear is that taking this broad, aggressive approach of labeling Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party might damage some potential relationships that could be formed with the intelligent and intellectual members of the party.

My perspective is that it isn't the "grass roots" (mob, more like it)/ rush side of things that are marginalized, its the conservative intellectuals that are marginalized. And that's why there is no check on Rush. But then I can't possibly see any difference between rush and hannity and coulter, outside of their different levels of success. Which, again, is why I'm arguing that rush is main stream and thus deserves to be head of the republicans out of power as well as volume.

That's why as much as I cna't stand people like david frum, his is a conservative intellectual and it is telling that he's constantly being attacked by right wing radio, also left the national review, the bastion of seasoned, british classical conservative intellectualism that really is no different now from hannity and colmes in agenda. But he's innefectual because he's sullied by the bad decisions that faltered conservative intellectual work. Sad but true. Its only people with clean hands like gov. of utah. john huntsman. who will be able to believably rebuild an effective conservative mind trust.

and john. I thought you were taking off for a bit. or was that just to trick the mods so you can continue spamming?