“I think you'll find that upon examination, I never claimed he had at that point.”
ta2t2o on Sep 27, 2012 at 01:08:50
“The insinuation was obvious. When you try to be smarmy - sometimes you end up getting twisted around in your comment trying to make a point. The point is that when Obama got elected in 2008 - there was no war history for him - other than him voting AGAINST going to war in Iraq. That would suggest he wasn't non-chalant about killing people. Bush, however, had no issues with fabricating evidence to begin an unjust war.”
“Yes, both have done horrible things. But if they are your benchmarks, your standards are too low. We as a nation need to demand better candidates, not quietly accept the less horrible of two horrible choices (whichever that may be).”
“Don't get me wrong, I'm disappointed in most of the LP's picks over the years too. The problem is the very attitude you are showing though. You and others who feel as you do continue to enable objectionable parties to be, as you put it, "your only game in town".”
satanlite on Sep 25, 2012 at 15:21:51
“That's called reality. It sucks, but fantasy life is not realistic, like wishin' won't make it so. 3rd party ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.”
“Can somebody please explain to me why a man who is so nonchalant about killing innocent people is a legitimate contender for our nation's highest office? And no, "I don't like Romney and/or Republicans" is not a legitimate response. Disliking one guy does not automatically make the other guy good and/or qualified.”
YupIndeed on Sep 25, 2012 at 13:34:42
“Bush did it when we invaded Iraq for no good reason. Not saying that what Obama is doing is any better, but we have a history of going to war in this country. War = $$$ and as a result, the citizens of this country suffer for it while the politicians swim in the profits.”
ta2t2o on Sep 25, 2012 at 12:24:42
“"Can somebody please explain to me why a man who is so nonchalant about killing innocent people is a legitimate contender for our nation's highest office?"
No - and what I really can't understand is how you guys re-elected him again in 2004.”
trinidad48 on Sep 25, 2012 at 12:05:23
“because the left are old terriosts-like ayers-obama's buddy-and the us voted for obama with some kind of racial guilt and P CORRECTNESS-i'm going to vote for the morman-better than nothing”
thinkofanamefast on Sep 25, 2012 at 11:52:24
“Obama has increased the number of drone strikes since he was elected....thought you were referring to him at first.”
dropthedh on Sep 25, 2012 at 11:48:41
“Because the people we are killing are not here. We do not recognize people from other nations, cultures and colors as being relevant to our lives. It is shameful and we need to start making noise about this. I will not be casting my vote for either R or D candidate.”
satanlite on Sep 25, 2012 at 11:41:27
“No it doesn't but when your only game in town is one of those two guys then you pick the least objectionable. And please don't assume that because I replied I actually consider libertarians or third party candidates worth discussing. Especially the former who are nothing but Republicans in disguise.”
“It's not new laws with stiff penalties that we need. It's awareness of the existing laws. Adding penalties to the mix just creates animosity for what is at this point simple ignorance of the protections.”
“The thing is, I see no reason for breastfeeding at whatever age is fine with mother and child to be anything but acceptable by default. Much like most personal freedom issues, if people want to convince me that people have to stop something, they're going to have to give me a pretty compelling reason.
As far as the inter-species thing, I don't see that I've confused the two. Milk is milk, and there's really no reason to pretend that it is somehow more acceptable when it comes from a different species.”
“I think our 18th century political minds were the best our country has seen to date.”
PhilPredicta on Aug 27, 2012 at 00:01:48
“I'd be willing to guarantee that not a single one of our Founding Fathers would empty their bladders on him (or any others cut from the same cloth) if they all were on fire while holding the last existing copy of the Constitution in their clutches..
Because of the fact that he has absolutely no regard for the notion of a real central government or any need for a common -rule of civic law.
Because his blithe interpretation of their vision is exactly the OPPOSITE of the miracle that they had conceived.
Because of an outlook that despises any acknowledgment to the necessity for a progressive evolutionary metamorphosis of our society... the fairness and universality of our laws and system of justice.
Because, frankly, he just doesn't "get it".
An intractable, dogmatic view that the tenets espoused within the Constitution somehow frozen in time just as it existed in the 18th Century should be as inalterable as if it's precepts were chiseled into tablets seared from the Summit of Sinai...
Our Forefathers created an immortal LIVING DOCUMENT for us all to share and GROW alongside.. and a document also designed to grow alongside US as well.
He just seems hellbent on EMBALMING it.”
“That's a rather childish way of looking at things. Limbaugh disagrees with the politics of most of the posters here most of the time. But we pretty much all agree (including Limbaugh) that what Akin said is stupid. The fact that the community refuses to admit that someone was right about something is a toxic thing.
Not only does it fail to acknowledge a state of agreement even upon simple, obvious things, it also treats anyone whose opinion changes on something as a hypocrite. Pretty ironic on political topics, where much of the discussion, debate, and commentary is focused on getting people to change their opinions. It's like begging people to change their opinion so you can laugh at them and call them a hypocrite as you've done here.
“It's frustrating to watch so many partisans sit here and attack Limbaugh for saying something correct. Surely we can all agree that what Akin said was stupid. Are we so far gone that we can't simply agree with someone who is correct without backhanding them just because their name was mentioned?
The childishness of people who can't maturely agree to agree with someone they already agree with is mind-boggling.”
slappington on Aug 21, 2012 at 21:32:13
“The thing that hides behind the name Rush Limbaugh is, in large part responsible for the division in which we currently reside.
It is his coin; cheap as it is.
His exhortations have driven conversation based in fact into the wilderness of Republican ignorance.
Hypocrisy and contempt of the Truth, given over to service on the altar of republican Greed are his chosen sanctuary.
Hasten to Costa Rica you living vomit.
If I should be so fortunate as to witness the day dueling comes back in vogue:
“I called it, I get to go first!”.”
Lu Foremost on Aug 21, 2012 at 21:25:45
“Put. The. Gin. Down.”
Writerdude2011 on Aug 21, 2012 at 21:02:36
“But it's Limbaugh and he's an idiot. And don't you find this new found enlightenment that Akin is hurting the " cause" a little disingenuous coming from a guy who refused for weeks to apologize until his advertisers started leaving like rats from a sinking ship? Right? Maybe. A hypocrite, definitely.”
“Correction: Akin won the Republican primary in Missouri, which means he's the most accurate representation of the least of two or more evils among Republicans in that state.
I think you'll find that most Republicans tend to hold their nose and vote for the most "electable" of the array of fools that the party lets them pick from. Keep in mind, Missouri is the state that had Ron Paul supporters arrested to get them out of their Republican Caucus. Not exactly a clean, open process to select candidates.”
Aug 18, 2012 at 22:31:00
“I can think of any number of similar problems with Biden. You're making the mistake that most people make: Look for flaws in the other guy to build confidence in your guy. After an honest examination, I find both the Democrats and Republicans to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. This "the other guy is flawed so our guy must be good" fallacy has done our nation no favors by electing either party.”
Aug 17, 2012 at 20:01:10
“I saw the "point" the article was trying to convey, but I did look past that distraction and pointed out something more important: that celebrity worship in the ballot box is stupid, no matter who may advocate what candidate from their position of stardom, and no matter whose songs are on which politician's iPod. The entire subject couldn't be less relevant to governance.”
deepthicket on Aug 18, 2012 at 16:55:58
“It is relevant to character, and its absence. What sort of insecure, pathetic wimp seeks the approval of voters by citing his relationship to a musician he's never met, and who in fact despises the politician and his politics? Does that politician strike you as one qualified for "governance"? Me either.”
Aug 17, 2012 at 19:58:30
“I'm unclear when I said any of that. Can you point it out for me? All I've said is that letting musicians and actors tell us how to vote is a bad idea. You seem confused by your partisan position, since you are attacking a party. I side with neither party, as both Democrats and Republicans are part of the problem and not the solution.
I think the idea that "that party said something I disagree with, therefore the other must be good and/or better" is fallacious.”
Aug 17, 2012 at 16:18:48
“Really? This is news? If the US takes its voting advice from musicians and actors, whether they be Tom Morello or Ted Nugent, Sean Penn or Tom Selleck, we're only dooming ourselves to the fate of any people who choose their leaders ignorantly.
Presidential votes are only a small part of the problem. People need to pay attention to not only their votes for the Senate and the House, but to their votes in the primaries for these, as well as their state counterparts and governors. Until our nation, /as a whole/ does this, we are going to continue to suffer the pains of allowing business-as-usual politicians to continue to get elected.”
deepthicket on Aug 17, 2012 at 16:50:27
“You missed the point. This was not a musician offering unsolicited political commentary. This was a politician cynically and stupidly attempting attract the votes of RATM fans by gratuitously associating himself with that band, and in return getting his head appropriately and emphatically handed to him.”
charlito on Aug 17, 2012 at 16:33:21
“Really. Your comparing Romney's surrogate Ted Nugent to RATM. That's like John MCcain saying Palin is a better candidate than Romney. Oh wait. He did say that.”
Syllogizer on Aug 17, 2012 at 16:25:11
“You almost got it right: it is not news that the US takes its voting advice from musicians, actors and even less informed people. We have been, as you say, dooming ourselves for years, but we don't even lift a finger to change this.”