Post by: Werewolf on March 25, 2008, 09:23:46 AM
Seems Mr. Limbaugh is imploring those registered as republicans in the states with primaries still to do to register as democrats if in closed primary states or cross party lines if in open primary states to vote for Hillary. His goal is to keep her in the race and with enough delegates that the democratic presidential candidate will have to be decided at the convention.
From what I heard he's having some success. Based on the sound bites he played from various democratic party heroes, pundits etc the Dems have gotten their panties all in a wad about it. One lady - a defense attorney in Ohio - was even saying that people who reregistered as dems and signed the affidavit stating that they would be loyal to the party and it's principles should be prosecuted for doing so if they can be identified.
Apparently Hillary is now ahead in the polls in Ohio, NC and PA which is making the Obama folks nervous and has the party leadership tearing at their hair in anticipation of the blood bath that will occur at the convention if this continues.
My brain tells me this is much ado about nothing. My gut is screaming that maybe it isn't. That maybe the US is on the brink of a voter revolution - or not.
What really irks me is the thought that Limbaugh could actually have the influence and power to carry this off. Not that I have a problem with what's being done just who is orchestrating it.
Comments?
Post by: Bogie on March 25, 2008, 01:03:15 PM
Why?
I'm gonna likely sell a helluva lot more anti-Hillary stuff than I am going to anti-Obama stuff.
Joe Suburbanite doesn't mind slapping a "Hillary is Bad" sticker on his truck, but will shy away from the same thing featuring Obama, because he doesn't want to look like a racist.
Post by: Derek Zeanah on March 25, 2008, 01:05:21 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 25, 2008, 01:07:40 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on March 25, 2008, 01:10:49 PM
In Texas, you only have to go vote (one or the other). They stamp your voter registration card with the party name and now you are registered as a party member and can attend the precinct convention. There is no affidavit or any crap like that. Affidavits and stuff sound like a bunch of Union crap.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 25, 2008, 01:11:08 PM
I have zero problem with Republicans crossing party lines to vote for Democrats. Both parties choose the rules to apply to their primaries, and as long as those rules aren't being broken (and so far they haven't been), people should be able to vote however they want.
People vote to further their own interests. That's what voting is all about. That's exactly what's happening here. What's the problem?
Besides, it was non-Republicans (moderates, independents, cross-over Democrats) who determined the Republican nominee. None of these people had any gripes when it was the Republican Party losing out. It's only now that the Democrats are suffering (and that Limbaugh is taking credit) that the practice becomes a crime.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 25, 2008, 01:15:03 PM
More gameplaying and manipulation from the party of 'traditional values'. It has already backfired on them and their defeat is baked into the cake. Seems they're the only ones who don't know that. Americans don't like trickery and deceit, especially when it's done in a inept manner.
It isn't "gameplaying" to vote to further your own interests. The liberals in the media are trying to make this into a big scandal, but it simply isn't.The media wants everyone to believe that this has backfired on Republicans. So far it hasn't. The longer the Democrat race continues, the more dirt we learn about the inevitable Dem nominee, Obama. Already this Jeremiah Wright stuff has cost him dearly. Most of the polls show McCain with a lead over Obama nationwide. A few weeks ago I never would have believed it possible that McCain could win. Now it appears he has a fairly good chance.
Post by: Angel Eyes on March 25, 2008, 01:17:59 PM
Apparently Hillary is now ahead in the polls in Ohio, NC and PA which is making the Obama folks nervous and has the party leadership tearing at their hair in anticipation of the blood bath that will occur at the convention if this continues.
Obama's falling numbers probably have little to do with Limbaugh and a lot to do with the fallout from the Rev. Wright controversy. Victor Davis Hanson's March 25th column is worth a read:
http://www.victorhanson.com/
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 25, 2008, 01:19:02 PM
Quote
A few weeks ago I never would have believed it possible that McCain might possibly win. Now it appears he has a chance, and a fairly good one.
I suspect by the time election day comes, McCain will be seen as nothing more than a doddering old codger. You remember Bob. Bob Dole.
Post by: AJ Dual on March 25, 2008, 01:25:46 PM
Hillary's natural unlikeability, and completely artificial persona will do the rest.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 25, 2008, 01:30:54 PM
And already Obama has lost most of his utopian sheen. He's no longer the candidate who transcends race. He's no longer the candidate of limitless hope. His true self is laid bare, and he's shown to be an America-hating, marxist, racist, hate-filled pessimist. It's not just that Obama is now looks like an imperfect candidate. He's become downright scary to a lot of middle America.
Heck, even McCain can beat that in November.
I don't know how much credit Limbaugh's operation chaos deserves for Obama's transformation. But I would bet that things would be playing out much differently had Obama become the undisputed nominee back on the 4th.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 25, 2008, 01:35:56 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on March 25, 2008, 01:47:26 PM
As long as these people vote in only one primary, I don't care. The Dems have the contested race so they will attract independents as well as others to vote in their primary.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 25, 2008, 01:52:50 PM
I was headed back to work from lunch today when I heard Limbaugh (what a putz) talking about something he calls Operation Chaos.
Oh, its alright to admit you listen to Rush.
Too many people take him more seriously than he does himself.
Post by: Werewolf on March 25, 2008, 03:57:47 PM
I was headed back to work from lunch today when I heard Limbaugh (what a putz) talking about something he calls Operation Chaos.
Oh, its alright to admit you listen to Rush.
Too many people take him more seriously than he does himself.
Limbaugh's an entertainer. Unfortunately too many of his listeners do not realize that. It's been my experience over the 56 years I've been on this earth that most people and Americans in particular, are totally turned off by arrogant blowhards pretending to be intellectuals. Limbaugh is that in spades. Why he is the exception is a wonderment to me.
Post by: grampster on March 25, 2008, 04:36:42 PM
Even Obama is in the game. He's got people in Pennsylvania hanging notes on car doors urging R's to cross over and vote for him.
Post by: Bigjake on March 25, 2008, 04:47:31 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 25, 2008, 07:08:28 PM
Quote
His goal is to keep her in the race and with enough delegates that the democratic presidential candidate will have to be decided at the convention.
Quote
That maybe the US is on the brink of a voter revolution - or not.
What does this have to do with any voter revolution? Quote from: Paddy
It has already backfired on them and their defeat is baked into the cake. Seems they're the only ones who don't know that.
No, I don't know about this backfiring and defeat. Please explain. Then explain how you have the nerve to get on your moral high-horse, after your previous flip-flops on this issue.
Quote from: HTG
It isn't "gameplaying" to vote to further your own interests. The liberals in the media are trying to make this into a big scandal, but it simply isn't.
It's definitely not a scandal. It's perfectly legal and routine. But it IS a game. And it's wrong. Voting in a government election to further your own interest is one thing (and not always right, either). But screwing with someone else's political party, deciding who will represent them, when you have no intention of voting for them, is just wrong. Quote from: Paddy
Limbaugh's efforts responsible for putting McCain in the Whitehouse? How ironically hilarious is that?
Not one bit. How is it ironic that Limbaugh would work to defeat a Democratic candidate? Do you suppose this is about McCain? It's pretty clear that Limbaugh has despised McCain for years. But did you really think Limbaugh would be content to let a Democrat have the White House?
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 25, 2008, 07:09:58 PM
Limbaugh's an entertainer. Unfortunately too many of his listeners do not realize that. It's been my experience over the 56 years I've been on this earth that most people and Americans in particular, are totally turned off by arrogant blowhards pretending to be intellectuals. Limbaugh is that in spades.
Typical sour grapes from lesser men.
Firstly, YOU want to judge Limbaugh's intellect? Wow. The fact that he's smarter than you doesn't mean he's pretending to be an intellectual. And if folks don't like arrogant blowhards, Limbaugh's vast, VAST audience might clue you in about his true character. Meanwhile, how many people are paying attention to you?
And on the subject of arrogant blowhards, O'Reilly does pretty well for himself, so... Quote
Limbaugh's an entertainer. Unfortunately too many of his listeners do not realize that.
What's unfortunate is that a lot of clueless people think that's an insult to Limbaugh (although he's called himself an entertainer many times), or that it marginalizes what he has to say. Being entertaining does not make him wrong, shallow, or insignificant. What's unfortunate is that a self-described entertainer has more sense and more smarts than most of the "serious" pundits and politicians.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 25, 2008, 07:39:01 PM
What's unfortunate is that a lot of clueless people think that's an insult to Limbaugh (although he's called himself an entertainer many times), or that it marginalizes what he has to say. Being entertaining does not make him wrong, shallow, or insignificant. What's unfortunate is that a self-described entertainer has more sense and more smarts than most of the "serious" pundits and politicians.
People can say what they want about Rush Limbaugh but, he does know politics and he definitely knows Liberals, probably more than they know themselves.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 26, 2008, 12:41:25 AM
Quote
Firstly, YOU want to judge Limbaugh's intellect?
"Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. But he dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class."
Judged. Found lacking.
Quote
Meanwhile, how many people are paying attention to you?
And even more people listen to Oprah. Doesn't make Oprah smart.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 26, 2008, 02:44:25 AM
Quote
Judged. Found lacking.
Well, that's a deeply intellectual thing to say. Yeah, anyone who dropped out of college is stupid.
And we know all the great minds were great dancers, right? I could judge your intellect by the fact that you failed to understand my post, and that I was questioning a particular poster's ability to judge Limbaugh's intellect. But I won't quite go that far. Quote
And even more people listen to Oprah. Doesn't make Oprah smart.
Opinion: Limbaugh is an arrogant windbag.
Opinion: People don't like arrogant windbags.
Fact: Millions of people listen to Limbaugh every day.
One of those statements has to be wrong.
Post by: LAK on March 26, 2008, 03:43:34 AM
If every republican sent a money order to them for "one cent", or even a dime - it might drain their funds completely. It would cost them a pile of money even to open all the envelopes and trash those below a certain amount.
-----------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://sunitedstates.org
Post by: HankB on March 26, 2008, 04:04:18 AM
Voting in a government election to further your own interest is one thing (and not always right, either). But screwing with someone else's political party, deciding who will represent them, when you have no intention of voting for them, is just wrong.
There is nothing wrong or unethical in crossover voting during a primary to weaken your opponent - "screwing with someone else's political party" - especially when they're intent on thoroughly screwing you.
When they're promising to screw you in their campaign rhetoric.
Years ago in Minnesota, there was a "Dump Spannaus" campaign in which GOP voters in large numbers voted in the Democratic primary against Warren Spannaus, a rabidly anti-gun democrat. Thanks to crossover voting, his opponent got the nomination . . . and lost handily in the general election.
Now, there's absolutely no guarantee that "Operation Chaos" will work . . . and even if it does, we're not going to get someone we actually want as president.
But when all the choices are bad ones - and I really mean bad ones - it makes some sense to do whatever you can to avoid the greater evil, and B. Hussein Obama is the greater evil.
Post by: ilbob on March 26, 2008, 05:40:40 AM
During the Clinton campaigns, he said many times that if the Clintons lost, that it would be bad for him personally, simply because the Clintons were so easy to poke fun at.
Its also very clear that he has a very keen grasp of politics that a lot of people just don't see because they do not like him personally. I enjoy the entertainment, and the occasional insights into politics Rush offers. I also like a guy who does not take himself all that seriously. No one who says some of the things he regularly says is taking himself all that seriously.
This is a guy who can keep tens of millions of people entertained for three hours every day on an unscripted radio talk show. And has managed to do it for 20 some years. Thats an astounding achievement all by itself.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 26, 2008, 05:55:22 AM
That said, the fact that Limbaugh has a huge audience indicates the intellectual level of the American people and goes a long way toward explaining why we have the government we do.
Post by: grampster on March 26, 2008, 10:47:27 AM
I guy from Texas called Rush today. He's an R and he crossed over to vote D (Hillary) in Texas. He went on to caucus for her in the PM on election day. The D's liked him so much, they voted him in a delegate for the D's. His neighbor a couple doors down (who doesn't know the caller by the way) is the chairman of the D party. I had to get out of the car about then, so I don't know what else he had to say, but he sure was laughing at the D's when I shut off the radio.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 26, 2008, 11:14:37 AM
What's funny is some of you seem to think academic achievement equates to intellect. That said, the fact that Limbaugh has a huge audience indicates the intellectual level of the American people and goes a long way toward explaining why we have the government we do.
You seem to be under the mistaken idea that Limbaugh's audience is listening to him in order to learn and bask in his great knowledge. It is nothing of the kind. That said, the fact that Limbaugh has a huge audience indicates the intellectual level of the American people and goes a long way toward explaining why we have the government we do. He talks about current issues and politics in an entertaining way and slants conservative pretty consistently. He also generally stays upbeat and doesn't let his show become angry or depressing for very long. That is about it.
There are a lot of other guys who I have turned off for one reason or another. It was either stupid ideas or just consistently being angry and ranting day in day out.
Post by: seeker_two on March 26, 2008, 11:48:10 AM
...that may be great for his ratings, but it will be the end of the Republic.....
....learn from this, Grasshopper.....Oxycontin does bad things to the brain.....
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 26, 2008, 12:14:07 PM
I get a kick out of people who rarely if ever actually listen to Rush Limbaugh, but think they know all there is to know about the guy.
Thank you. When they DO listen, they hear him making a lot of sarcastic or self-aggrandizing comments, which he only says to tweak them. And it works. 
Regular listeners get the humor, though. Quote
During the Clinton campaigns, he said many times that if the Clintons lost, that it would be bad for him personally, simply because the Clintons were so easy to poke fun at.
He also keeps saying, "my success does not depend on who wins elections." FWIW.Quote
You seem to be under the mistaken idea that Limbaugh's audience is listening to him in order to learn and bask in his great knowledge. It is nothing of the kind. He talks about current issues and politics in an entertaining way and slants conservative pretty consistently. He also generally stays upbeat and doesn't let his show become angry or depressing for very long. That is about it.
I think it's both. Sometimes even in the same listener. When I was fourteen, I hung on his every word and even read his books. Now that I've grown up a bit, I just like him personally, and like hearing his take on things. I don't agree with him all the time.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 26, 2008, 12:24:55 PM
Quote
You seem to be under the mistaken idea that Limbaugh's audience is listening to him in order to learn and bask in his great knowledge.
Au contraire, mon ami. (Did I say that correctly, Laurent?). I listened to Rush Limbaugh daily for years before I just very recently woke up, saw the light, and realized nearly everything he says is either dishonest, mistaken, or both. Same as the rest of the current crop of self appointed 'conservatives'.
Quote
Limbaugh's antics are going to get us another eight years (or more) of Clinton......
...that may be great for his ratings, but it will be the end of the Republic.....
...that may be great for his ratings, but it will be the end of the Republic.....
If we survive eight years of George Bush, we can survive anything.
Post by: Scout26 on March 26, 2008, 01:16:11 PM
Quote
"Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. But he dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class."
Quote
Judged. Found lacking.
IIRC, Bill Gates also dropped out of college: "He enrolled at Harvard College in the fall of 1973 intending to get a pre-law degree,[16] but did not have a definite study plan and eventually left without his degree."
I did graduate from college and would gladly trade my degree for for just one year of either's income.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 26, 2008, 07:09:28 PM
Say; how much does it cost to "process" a political campaign contribution?
If every republican sent a money order to them for "one cent", or even a dime - it might drain their funds completely. It would cost them a pile of money even to open all the envelopes and trash those below a certain amount.
My state's Democrat Party used to send me lots of campaign mail, asking for contributions and whatnot. One day I got fed up with it and mailed 'em a check for 5 cents. They never cashed it. They stopped sending me their junk after that, too.
If every republican sent a money order to them for "one cent", or even a dime - it might drain their funds completely. It would cost them a pile of money even to open all the envelopes and trash those below a certain amount.
Post by: taurusowner on March 26, 2008, 10:20:57 PM
And second, Limbaugh doesn't control anyone. He simply stated a good idea and people realized that it was a good idea and went with it. If it was a bad idea, no one would do it.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 26, 2008, 10:47:51 PM
Quote
Well, that's a deeply intellectual thing to say. Yeah, anyone who dropped out of college is stupid.
No. Some people drop out of college voluntarily. But flunking each and every course is difficult if you're not silly.
Quote
Opinion: Limbaugh is an arrogant windbag.
Opinion: People don't like arrogant windbags.
Fact: Millions of people listen to Limbaugh every day.
One of those statements has to be wrong.
Opinion: People don't like arrogant windbags.
Fact: Millions of people listen to Limbaugh every day.
One of those statements has to be wrong.
Suggestion: Some people DO in fact like arrogant windbags. Other's don't. People enjoy listening to Rush because they enjoy listening to him verbally stomp down those they disagree with, and validate their opinions.
Post by: LAK on March 27, 2008, 02:22:43 AM
Quote
My state's Democrat Party used to send me lots of campaign mail, asking for contributions and whatnot. One day I got fed up with it and mailed 'em a check for 5 cents. They never cashed it. They stopped sending me their junk after that, too.
Well let's take it a step further; how about every conservative mailing letters (they will not be able to tell whether an envelope contains a MO, check or not) to the contribution address asking them to give reasons why we should give them our money. When, of course you do not receive a replay, you send another. That would swamp their boat and create the prospect of a terrible bottleneck in funding or spending a pile of money to hire enough people to process and filter them all.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 27, 2008, 02:24:32 AM
Quote
But flunking each and every course is difficult if you're not silly.
I can't believe I have to tell you this, but it is extremely easy to flunk all your courses, if you quit caring, quit going, quit doing assignments, quit studying for tests, etc. That would be a question of commitment and motivation.Quote
Suggestion: Some people DO in fact like arrogant windbags. Other's don't.
Precisely. That's why I said that one of those had to be wrong.
Post by: grampster on March 27, 2008, 04:56:11 AM
My personal view is that a college education is highly over valued unless one is training for a highly technical arena such as medicine. Some of the best engineers that I came across were self taught.
Limbaugh is a highly skilled entertainer. You might not like the guy, but he single handedly turned AM talk radio into a major communication device and destroyed the grip that the biased mainstream media had on our news. He's also amusing to listen to. Sometimes I get more laughs and enjoyment out of listening to Rush than watching comedy central. He's the guy who points out that the King does not have on any clothes. That is a valuable resource.
Post by: ilbob on March 27, 2008, 06:53:45 AM
Most of the highly successful people I know, including yours truly, did not have a college degree. Some of the biggest screw ups in my field had advanced degrees.
My personal view is that a college education is highly over valued unless one is training for a highly technical arena such as medicine. Some of the best engineers that I came across were self taught.
Limbaugh is a highly skilled entertainer. You might not like the guy, but he single handedly turned AM talk radio into a major communication device and destroyed the grip that the biased mainstream media had on our news. He's also amusing to listen to. Sometimes I get more laughs and enjoyment out of listening to Rush than watching comedy central. He's the guy who points out that the King does not have on any clothes. That is a valuable resource.
I find that most people who do not like Limbaugh have not listened to his show enough to make any kind of judgment about it. Thats OK, if you don't want to listen to it, you can exercise your right to do something else during that 3 hours every weekday. However, people who have not listened to it much, are not really the best people to be commenting on a show that can be very subtle at times, while seeming to be anything but subtle.My personal view is that a college education is highly over valued unless one is training for a highly technical arena such as medicine. Some of the best engineers that I came across were self taught.
Limbaugh is a highly skilled entertainer. You might not like the guy, but he single handedly turned AM talk radio into a major communication device and destroyed the grip that the biased mainstream media had on our news. He's also amusing to listen to. Sometimes I get more laughs and enjoyment out of listening to Rush than watching comedy central. He's the guy who points out that the King does not have on any clothes. That is a valuable resource.
I also find that a lot of people who claim to hate his show while also claiming to be "conservative" are really liberals, that do not want to admit to being liberals for some reason. if you listen to their diatribes against Limbaugh they often come across as being mostly against mainstream conservative values and principles, which makes me suspicious of their supposed conservatism.
You have to like a guy who can say things like "talent on loan from God" with a straight face. Many people think of such a comment as being an egotistical one. Someone who thinks more deeply might well understand there may well be more than a grain of truth to it.
Post by: grampster on March 27, 2008, 09:05:18 AM
On the other hand I've not run into too many folks who claim to despise Rush that didn't have ego grandification themselves.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 27, 2008, 09:29:19 AM
Quote
But flunking each and every course is difficult if you're not silly.
I can't believe I have to tell you this, but it is extremely easy to flunk all your courses, if you quit caring, quit going, quit doing assignments, quit studying for tests, etc. That would be a question of commitment and motivation.
Mega-dittos fistful!
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 27, 2008, 10:00:47 AM
And he doesn't go 'ummmm' every other sentence, like Rush and Hannity.
Post by: ilbob on March 27, 2008, 11:25:15 AM
I don't have time to listen to Rush anymore, because he's on the air the same time as Thom Hartmann, who actually knows what he's talking about.
Since I never heard of him i was forced to google him. I am not surprised you would not like Limbaugh if you like left wing talk instead. To each his own.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 27, 2008, 11:49:21 AM
Read some of the writings by Theodore Roosevelt. That will give you a start.
Post by: Bogie on March 27, 2008, 12:04:56 PM
Personally, I think that the democrats, and their penchant for "organizational dynamics" is going to turn around and bite 'em... Hillary thought she had it tied up - she was running like an incumbent. Then Obama showed up... Young, sexy, etc... Young college women got turned on. Young college boys wanted to get laid, so they went along for the ride... That's going to get old tho...
Has anyone noticed that Obama has changed his speechifying style? He's no longer doing the preachin' rhythm...
Post by: MechAg94 on March 27, 2008, 12:15:58 PM
That increased productivity belongs to those who produced it, not solely to those who provided the capital, but also to those who provided the labor.
So are you going to form a new Worker's Party now? Please explain what you mean by that statement. I can see it could go different ways.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 27, 2008, 12:21:46 PM
I first listened to Rush in the early 90's when I was in college. It was very refreshing to hear someone who had a basically conservative take on a lot of the issues of the day. I have always leaned conservative and it was nice to hear that side. There are lot of other sources for that these days.
As far as disagreement, I am not Pro-Life so there were always some things I disagreed with from the very start. His is just another opinion to take in while forming my own.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 27, 2008, 12:47:26 PM
Quote
I also find that a lot of people who claim to hate his show while also claiming to be "conservative" are really liberals, that do not want to admit to being liberals for some reason. if you listen to their diatribes against Limbaugh they often come across as being mostly against mainstream conservative values and principles, which makes me suspicious of their supposed conservatism.
That may be true in many cases, but there are plenty of conservatives who dis Limbaugh because they think it makes them seem more independent-minded, or more insightful. As if agreeing with Limbaugh means letting him "tell you what to think." There are others who just don't like his style.
Quote
Limbaugh is a highly skilled entertainer. You might not like the guy, but he single handedly turned AM talk radio into a major communication device and destroyed the grip that the biased mainstream media had on our news.
Regardless of political affiliation, everyone can thank Rush Limbaugh for one important achievement. He is probably the one most responsible for America's skepticism toward media. He was certainly not the first to claim that the media is biased, but he is one of the biggest proponents of the idea that the newspaper can be wrong, and the anchorman can lie to you. And certainly our leftist friends can't disapprove of healthy skepticism toward voices of authority?
I don't have time to listen to Rush anymore, because he's on the air the same time as Thom Hartmann, who actually knows what he's talking about.
I've been meaning to ask who you've been parroting all this time.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 27, 2008, 02:32:06 PM
1) He has contempt for the representative process of democracy, which is why he attempts to subvert it.
2) He doesn't believe his 'philosophy' will succeed in the open marketplace of democracy.
That makes him a deceitful hypocrite.
Post by: Werewolf on March 27, 2008, 02:38:51 PM
Quote
That increased productivity belongs to those who produced it, not solely to those who provided the capital, but also to those who provided the labor.
Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself. OH! Wait. He did say it or words to that effect.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 27, 2008, 02:50:24 PM
Well, the simple fact that Limbaugh would even promote something like 'Operation Chaos' shows two things:
1) He has contempt for the representative process of democracy, which is why he attempts to subvert it.
2) He doesn't believe his 'philosophy' will succeed in the open marketplace of democracy.
That makes him a deceitful hypocrite.
1) He has contempt for the representative process of democracy, which is why he attempts to subvert it.
2) He doesn't believe his 'philosophy' will succeed in the open marketplace of democracy.
That makes him a deceitful hypocrite.
These are primaries, not the general elections. The "representative process of democracy" is only tangentally involved in the first place.
After all, if a party wants to protect the purity of its primary vote by restrictive membership rules or limiting access to the primary vote to those who have demonstrated a committment to that party, it is free to. Many state party organizations have done just that for just that reason.
Rush's "philosophy", whatever that may be, isn't running for election, in fact no one who actually agrees with Rush to a great degree is even running. But the philosophies of the actual candidates chosen under their party's self-designed primary system will be represented and competing in the "open marketplace" of the actual election.
In short, if you want only Dem's voting for the Dem. candidate, restrict the primary to registered Dem's of a certain length of time. If the independant's want to get involved, let them choose to register or wait like everyone else until the general election.
Post by: grampster on March 27, 2008, 02:54:36 PM
Well, the simple fact that Limbaugh would even promote something like 'Operation Chaos' shows two things:
1) He has contempt for the representative process of democracy, which is why he attempts to subvert it.
That statement is so patently illconceived that I'm stunned you would print it under your screen name. The Democrats have been using this tactic for years, mostly in states that do not require one to register party affiliation. Rilley, I give you credit for sticking by some of the things you believe, but you have seriously gone wacko on tis one.[/b]
2) He doesn't believe his 'philosophy' will succeed in the open marketplace of democracy.
Wrong again. The most serious political attempt by conservatives to promote conservative governance was The Contract With America, which swept Republicans into control of the House and the Senate, after 40 years of liberal D governance. The fact the R's didn't keep their word was one of the largest betrayals of the American public in perhaps 100 years.
That makes him a deceitful hypocrite.
1) He has contempt for the representative process of democracy, which is why he attempts to subvert it.
That statement is so patently illconceived that I'm stunned you would print it under your screen name. The Democrats have been using this tactic for years, mostly in states that do not require one to register party affiliation. Rilley, I give you credit for sticking by some of the things you believe, but you have seriously gone wacko on tis one.[/b]
2) He doesn't believe his 'philosophy' will succeed in the open marketplace of democracy.
Wrong again. The most serious political attempt by conservatives to promote conservative governance was The Contract With America, which swept Republicans into control of the House and the Senate, after 40 years of liberal D governance. The fact the R's didn't keep their word was one of the largest betrayals of the American public in perhaps 100 years.
That makes him a deceitful hypocrite.
Well, at least you can fairly call him a hypocrite because if he were a conservative that would mean he would have some principals that he would be hypocitical about. Which is more than what you can say for liberals who have no principals at all. Situational ethicists (libs) could not ever be accused of having principals because one must have a position that lasts longer than the last breath one took.
Post by: Iain on March 27, 2008, 03:02:59 PM
Post by: grampster on March 27, 2008, 03:12:26 PM
Post by: Iain on March 27, 2008, 03:13:44 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 27, 2008, 03:13:52 PM
Quote
That increased productivity belongs to those who produced it, not solely to those who provided the capital, but also to those who provided the labor.
Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself. OH! Wait. He did say it or words to that effect.If there were a Godwin award for mentioning communism, you just won it. Now explain why, in a modern democracy, capital trumps labor in the production of goods.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 27, 2008, 03:25:24 PM
Quote
That increased productivity belongs to those who produced it, not solely to those who provided the capital, but also to those who provided the labor.
Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself. OH! Wait. He did say it or words to that effect.If there were a Godwin award for mentioning communism, you just won it. Now explain why, in a modern democracy, capital trumps labor in the production of goods.
Did they stop paying people wages when I wasn't looking? Are workers no longer free to not accept a job or to change an existing one if they don't like those wages anymore?
Can people no longer choose to live frugally and make wise investment decisions thus also taking part in the "capital" part of the process, even while simultaneously working for wages?
Is it now illegal to determine one's strengths and an opportunity and start one's own business, thus being the one paying the wages instead of earning them?
If that happened, someone send me a PM or something, right now I'm busy increasing my income by working harder as a commissioned loan originator.
(Well, not right now, right now I'm playing hookey, which, as long as I meet my minimum negotiated contract requirements for production, I can do at will)
If only I had actually gotten that college degree...
Post by: Bogie on March 27, 2008, 03:33:04 PM
Now get to it!
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 27, 2008, 03:47:28 PM
Quote
Did they stop paying people wages when I wasn't looking? Are workers no longer free to not accept a job or to change an existing one if they don't like those wages anymore?
Can people no longer choose to live frugally and make wise investment decisions thus also taking part in the "capital" part of the process, even while simultaneously working for wages?
Is it now illegal to determine one's strengths and an opportunity and start one's own business, thus being the one paying the wages instead of earning them?
Can people no longer choose to live frugally and make wise investment decisions thus also taking part in the "capital" part of the process, even while simultaneously working for wages?
Is it now illegal to determine one's strengths and an opportunity and start one's own business, thus being the one paying the wages instead of earning them?
Translation: "If you're working for a wage to support your family, you're a lazy dumbass who deserves what he gets. The smart industrious people have businesses and investments. Everybody else can take a hike."
OK. Let's just go back to feudalism then and abandon democracy altogether.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 27, 2008, 04:06:59 PM
Quote
Did they stop paying people wages when I wasn't looking? Are workers no longer free to not accept a job or to change an existing one if they don't like those wages anymore?
Can people no longer choose to live frugally and make wise investment decisions thus also taking part in the "capital" part of the process, even while simultaneously working for wages?
Is it now illegal to determine one's strengths and an opportunity and start one's own business, thus being the one paying the wages instead of earning them?
Can people no longer choose to live frugally and make wise investment decisions thus also taking part in the "capital" part of the process, even while simultaneously working for wages?
Is it now illegal to determine one's strengths and an opportunity and start one's own business, thus being the one paying the wages instead of earning them?
Translation: "If you're working for a wage to support your family, you're a lazy dumbass who deserves what he gets. The smart industrious people have businesses and investments. Everybody else can take a hike."
OK. Let's just go back to feudalism then and abandon democracy altogether.
What?
Where the hell do you get that from what I said?
If you are working for a wage to support your family you aren't lazy or a dumbass, but neither are you being "exploited". Your wage reflects the value you add to the company who pays you. That's why they pay you.
If you sweep the floor, you probably add less value to the company than the guy who runs the lathe, so you get paid less. You could run the lathe if you chose to get trained on it like he did.
If you design the part to be lathed, you add still more value, and again you were and are free to learn design and take that job.
No matter what you do for a wage-earning job, you are compensated "fairly". After all, you chose to take that job and you choose to stay there.
If you don't agree the compensation is fair, you can negotiate for a higher one by demonstrating you add more value than they are taking into account, or you can change to a different company that pays more for the same job, or you can do what it takes to get a different job that pays better.
None of that is impossible or against the law.
Now, if you really want to get ahead, set aside a little every payday and invest it, either for interest or in education, let those savings work for you and double your efforts.
How is any of that implying inadequacy in the worker. They are free to do any of it, just like millions of other people every day actually do.
Post by: Bogie on March 27, 2008, 05:03:40 PM
Too many folks choose to go home and watch American Idol instead of working overtime in a training program or going to night school.
Cause and effect - if you do not have education or skills for a position, do not expect to make the money which it pays.
Post by: Werewolf on March 27, 2008, 05:19:00 PM
Quote
That increased productivity belongs to those who produced it, not solely to those who provided the capital, but also to those who provided the labor.
Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself. OH! Wait. He did say it or words to that effect.If there were a Godwin award for mentioning communism, you just won it. Now explain why, in a modern democracy, capital trumps labor in the production of goods.
The USA's economic system is Capitalism not the socialism you seem to wish it to be. In a capitalist economic system labor is a commodity to be bargained for no different from the hard materials, transport etc. necessary for production. Capital has the money. Labor wants it and sells it to whomever the highest bidder is. In other words capital is at the top of the food chain.
But just to tweak your socialist behind at the most base level it boils down to the golden rule. He who has the gold rules.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 27, 2008, 06:14:12 PM
Labor is an exclusive product of humans. To relegate labor to merely a commodity on par with materials is to completely miss the purpose of the founding of the United States of America.
Post by: grampster on March 27, 2008, 06:36:30 PM
The only difference today is that the King (statist R's and D's) has deigned to slobber a little of "the take" to the welfare state the King depends on to keep it's power.
Capital makes the world go round in an industrial society. No Capital? No industry. No need for workers. In the old agrarian society, Riley, maybe labor was king. No longer. Labor grabbed up some land, hunted, planted some crops. Became self sustaining. But if you'll notice sometimes came a bumper crop and lots of game. Now there's a bit of Capital available. Once that happened, industry started to happen. Guys started to labor making glass windows to get some of that capital. Then maybe a wagon maker and a buggy maker and a buggy whip maker and then a steam engine and the beat goes on.
Now "King" Fed Gov wants to take away most of that capital and use it to buy votes to gain and increase power. Too bad nobody gives a rat's behind about the Constitution any more.
Post by: taurusowner on March 27, 2008, 09:10:35 PM
Some of you(socialists) seem to think that people are owed something simply for showing up. That is a falsehood. Your success is what you make it. The opportunities are there. Having the sense of mind to strive for them is up to you. But no one else owes you there work. And it's no one's responsibility but your own to carry your burden.
It may seem cruel, but anything else just gives people rewards for shifting their burden to others. And that is even more cruel.
Post by: seeker_two on March 28, 2008, 12:59:30 AM
That increased productivity belongs to those who produced it, not solely to those who provided the capital, but also to those who provided the labor.
So are you going to form a new Worker's Party now? Please explain what you mean by that statement. I can see it could go different ways.
In other words....."trickle-down" economics works great......if the top allows the benefits to trickle down to the rest of the workers. That hasn't been happening lately....
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 28, 2008, 02:28:56 AM
To relegate labor to merely a commodity on par with materials is to completely miss the purpose of the founding of the United States of America.
But the Founders did not think of the citizenry as labor. They had a higher view of mankind than simply their economic worth. Besides, America was founded by men who, typically for their time, thought of working for others as being slavish. It was a completely different economy.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 28, 2008, 06:01:55 AM
Quote
But the Founders did not think of the citizenry as labor. They had a higher view of mankind than simply their economic worth.
Exactly right. That concept of humans having only economic value is common to tyrannical monarchies, Godless communism, and Godless corporatism. It's an anathema to the United States because it's exactly what our Revolutionary War and founding were all about-to break the chains of bondage to Great Britain. And now some of you (most of you) are quite willing to acknowledge the supremacy of the corporate state in the name of 'capitalism'. You're quite willing to abandon the principles of democracy through representative government of, by, and for the people. Like spoiled little children who want what they want when they want it, you have no idea of the value of your heritage of freedom. Instead, you've been taught that any and all government is 'bad' and the corporate state is 'good'. And you've swallowed it.
Go ahead. Put yourselves on the corporate auction block. The mythical but omnipotent 'free market' will determine your value.
Post by: ilbob on March 28, 2008, 09:55:31 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 28, 2008, 12:21:15 PM
Quote
But the Founders did not think of the citizenry as labor. They had a higher view of mankind than simply their economic worth.
Exactly right.
Yes it is. And you're putting a Marxist overlay onto the Founders. They were not thinking about labor or the working man when they revolted. These concepts had yet to be of serious concern.
I'm not calling you a Marxist, but I am saying that you're putting those kinds of ideas into what they said and did.
And now some of you (most of you) are quite willing to acknowledge the supremacy of the corporate state in the name of 'capitalism'. You're quite willing to abandon the principles of democracy through representative government of, by, and for the people. Like spoiled little children who want what they want when they want it, you have no idea of the value of your heritage of freedom. Instead, you've been taught that any and all government is 'bad' and the corporate state is 'good'. And you've swallowed it.
Who is he talking to?
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 28, 2008, 01:32:16 PM
Post by: AJ Dual on March 28, 2008, 01:52:23 PM
Quote
But the Founders did not think of the citizenry as labor. They had a higher view of mankind than simply their economic worth.
Exactly right.
Yes it is. And you're putting a Marxist overlay onto the Founders. They were not thinking about labor or the working man when they revolted. These concepts had yet to be of serious concern.
And now some of you (most of you) are quite willing to acknowledge the supremacy of the corporate state in the name of 'capitalism'. You're quite willing to abandon the principles of democracy through representative government of, by, and for the people. Like spoiled little children who want what they want when they want it, you have no idea of the value of your heritage of freedom. Instead, you've been taught that any and all government is 'bad' and the corporate state is 'good'. And you've swallowed it.
Who is he talking to?
I think he couldn't hold onto it any longer. The context to suddenly launch into Marxist diatribes was just a wee bit thin...
Paddy, for the love of the God you probably don't believe in, because the dialectic demands that you don't, please, please, please tell me you're under twenty-five years old.
(And yes, I'm kinda-sorta cribbing from Winston Churchill here...)
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 28, 2008, 02:18:45 PM
Post by: AJ Dual on March 28, 2008, 03:32:19 PM
Well, that should set him off real good.
Well, I will admit that I don't really have a dog in this fight, and I am old enough to know better.
Poking sticks at someone with a high-post count openly citing Marxist rhetoric on a predominantly libertarian-right discussion board is sort of the equivalent of having the bad judgment to tell the wino screaming obscenities on the street corner to shut up and seek employment when you've only got 20 minutes to get lunch and make it back to the office...
Post by: grampster on March 28, 2008, 06:37:16 PM
The single biggest issue we face today is not the war, it's energy; oil and gas.
It's what makes the world go round. It is our freedom, it's everything. If we'd become self sufficient in oil and gas starting in the 70's (and we could have because we've got more oil and gas in and around America than exists in the rest of the world), none of the political problems, war, or economic problems we have would exist. And neither party, especially John Effing McCain, is talking about it except like loons.
I think that pisses Riley (Paddy) off. I know it pisses me off big time.
Post by: AJ Dual on March 29, 2008, 05:15:50 AM
Awwww, Riley (Paddy) is all right. He's just going through MENopause. He's a seasoned citizen like me; I'm a bit older, but he'd been a life long repub (so he says) but now he's into withdrawal since the elected R's have mostly turned into RINO's or out and out statists over the last 30 years. I don't think he actually believes some of the stuff he says. He thinks he does, but he's old enough to know better; and I believe he does, but just doesn't know how to quit being so pissed at how we've been betrayed by the R party.
The single biggest issue we face today is not the war, it's energy; oil and gas.
It's what makes the world go round. It is our freedom, it's everything. If we'd become self sufficient in oil and gas starting in the 70's (and we could have because we've got more oil and gas in and around America than exists in the rest of the world), none of the political problems, war, or economic problems we have would exist. And neither party, especially John Effing McCain, is talking about it except like loons.
I think that pisses Riley (Paddy) off. I know it pisses me off big time.
The single biggest issue we face today is not the war, it's energy; oil and gas.
It's what makes the world go round. It is our freedom, it's everything. If we'd become self sufficient in oil and gas starting in the 70's (and we could have because we've got more oil and gas in and around America than exists in the rest of the world), none of the political problems, war, or economic problems we have would exist. And neither party, especially John Effing McCain, is talking about it except like loons.
I think that pisses Riley (Paddy) off. I know it pisses me off big time.
Well, I guess I'm glad he's got enough spirit to get angry, and not just fall in line and display Stockholm syndrome to the RINO's, but I thought that's what the Paulites were for.
But... Marx?
Then that's oppositional defiant disorder.
I'm in 100% agreement with you about energy. If we can survive the agribusiness/ethanol scam, the market will take care of it, IMO. Cheap plastic/printable solar with enough efficiency to be used on rooftops north of the 48th parallel, even in winter, is one of the holy grails of materials science/nanotechnology, and they keep announcing incremental gains every few months. And (IIRC) Toshiba has announced silicon nano-wire LiOn batteries have been developed that can take a 90%+ charge in just five minutes.
There's your electric car that can go 150-300 miles on $1 of electricity...
And the Wyoming shale deposits and the Canuck tar-sands are about a 100 year worldwide supply of oil, at current demand + some growth. At at $100+ barrels of oil, and traditional drilling dropping below 5 to 1 net energy gain, it's profitable. And of course there's all our wells which are capped, or fields that aren't tapped at all due to labor costs, and environmental regulations/agitators. Let the rest of the world suck their deposits dry first. Then market demand will see the Gulf, Texas, ANWAR, and the drier goop in the shale and sand be profitable.
And there's several walk-away-safe nuclear designs out there. When the market pressure is enough, we'll build and license those too.
Probably the one thing about France I admire at this point.
If we don't destroy ourselves with bad policy, in 50 years, America/Canada will have the lion's share of the world's food, and the world's oil. And even if other energy sources come into play, the world still needs petrochemicals for just about everything else. Plastics, lubrication, pesticides, fertilizers, you name it.
And except for Dubai which sees the writing on the wall over M.E. oil running out, and is turning itself into Disneyland as fast as it can, the only thing the M.E. has of any great use is labor under non P.C./exploitive cultural and political conditions. And if parts of it stay stable once the oil stops, (Or maybe get MORE stable) that cheap labor pool is going to take a chunk out of China's and India's hide.
Post by: grampster on March 29, 2008, 11:12:27 AM
You ever wonder why our so called leaders don't elevate this discussion? I think that's why I'm so down on education. Look what it has given us for political leaders. The single defining issue that is driving everything in the world and nobody who wants to be capo di tuti capo is talking about it. Disgusting.
On the other hand, maybe that old saw about "... them that can do, and them that can't go into politics" is really true.
Post by: taurusowner on March 29, 2008, 12:28:57 PM
Quote
There's your electric car that can go 150-300 miles on $1 of electricity...
Not really. The amount of mechanical energy need to propel a average weight vehicle 150-300 miles remains unchanged. The amount of electricity to turn the motors to create this mechanical energy remains unchanged. 1$ of electricity does not have enough energy to propel an average weight vehicle 150-300 miles, no matter how it's stored or how fast it takes to store it.
Post by: AJ Dual on March 29, 2008, 02:44:42 PM
Quote
There's your electric car that can go 150-300 miles on $1 of electricity...
Not really. The amount of mechanical energy need to propel a average weight vehicle 150-300 miles remains unchanged. The amount of electricity to turn the motors to create this mechanical energy remains unchanged. 1$ of electricity does not have enough energy to propel an average weight vehicle 150-300 miles, no matter how it's stored or how fast it takes to store it.
Okay, you're right. I looked up some numbers, and the average U.S. price per kW/h is just a shave under $.10 per. Throwing in some efficiency losses for charging losses, and kW/h into traction/torque, it would take maybe 50 kW/h to charge up a car about the size of a Honda Civic for a range of 130 miles.
So you were RIGHT, I was off by 500% on my estimate. It's five bucks.
Rounding up a bit that's still $.04 a mile. With gas here running $3.20/gal right now, and the best econo-boxes doing about 50mpg (not even close real-world, but just using the EPA highway number for the sake of argument and give the ICE car, or even a hybrid, every benefit of the doubt...) That's a little over $.06 per mile. So an all-electric vehicle looks about like it's a little more than half the energy cost to operate. And that's with giving the ICE car every chance possible.
If the car is made smartly, leveraging the potential savings in weight with a simplified power train, or none at all with motors in the wheels, or a non corroding composite body that's lighter, yet stronger than steel that offers safety, and a long term ability to recoup the initial purchase investment, an all-EV looks darn good to me. And that's not even adding in things an EV can do that a ICE car can't, like recoup some of the energy spent on accelerating with regenerative braking it looks even better if it's a lot of street driving you're doing as opposed to highway.
Post by: ilbob on March 31, 2008, 11:37:42 AM
Post by: richyoung on March 31, 2008, 12:38:56 PM
Well, the simple fact that Limbaugh would even promote something like 'Operation Chaos' shows two things:
1) He has contempt for the representative process of democracy, which is why he attempts to subvert it.
1) He has contempt for the representative process of democracy, which is why he attempts to subvert it.
Don;t like the rules? Get 'm changed. Everything he has said and done is within the rules - UNLIKE the activities of the major parties...
Quote
2) He doesn't believe his 'philosophy' will succeed in the open marketplace of democracy.
That makes him a deceitful hypocrite.
That makes him a deceitful hypocrite.
News flash - we have a leftie, an uber-leftie, and an uber, UBER-leftie running. It isn't an "open marketplace", so screw it!
Post by: richyoung on March 31, 2008, 12:50:31 PM
Quote
Did they stop paying people wages when I wasn't looking? Are workers no longer free to not accept a job or to change an existing one if they don't like those wages anymore?
Can people no longer choose to live frugally and make wise investment decisions thus also taking part in the "capital" part of the process, even while simultaneously working for wages?
Is it now illegal to determine one's strengths and an opportunity and start one's own business, thus being the one paying the wages instead of earning them?
Can people no longer choose to live frugally and make wise investment decisions thus also taking part in the "capital" part of the process, even while simultaneously working for wages?
Is it now illegal to determine one's strengths and an opportunity and start one's own business, thus being the one paying the wages instead of earning them?
Translation: "If you're working for a wage to support your family, you're a lazy dumbass who deserves what he gets. The smart industrious people have businesses and investments. Everybody else can take a hike."
OK. Let's just go back to feudalism then and abandon democracy altogether.
Why do you keep confusing political and economic systems?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 31, 2008, 02:49:49 PM
One lady - a defense attorney in Ohio - was even saying that people who reregistered as dems and signed the affidavit stating that they would be loyal to the party and it's principles should be prosecuted for doing so if they can be identified.
I've been a registered Republican in Ohio for almost 15 years, and I can tell you in Ohio there is no affidavit. You walk up to the poll workers, ask for the party ballot, and of you go. Looks like radio and the internet have one more thing in common...anyone can profess to being an expert at anything and get someone to believe them.
Ohio is as close to open primary as I know of.
Post by: Werewolf on March 31, 2008, 04:03:11 PM
One lady - a defense attorney in Ohio - was even saying that people who reregistered as dems and signed the affidavit stating that they would be loyal to the party and it's principles should be prosecuted for doing so if they can be identified.
I've been a registered Republican in Ohio for almost 15 years, and I can tell you in Ohio there is no affidavit.
Perhaps you can ask a registered dem and see if they remember having to sign a statement of principla or loyalty oath as Limbaugh called it. In fact Limbaugh's whole spiel that day was on the so called loyalty oath the dems had to take and how the pundits were saying that what he was calling for repubs to do was a violation of Ohio law.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 31, 2008, 04:04:20 PM
Quote
Why do you keep confusing political and economic systems?
Haven't you heard? They're irrevocably entwined. One depends on the other.
Post by: Werewolf on March 31, 2008, 04:06:29 PM
Quote
Why do you keep confusing political and economic systems?
Haven't you heard? They're irrevocably entwined. One depends on the other.
And the Chinese are in the process of proving that capitalism does not require a democratic form of government to be successful. I was involved in setting up finance and accounting departments for two international firms over there and based on my experience the capitalist ethic is taking hold by leaps and bounds. The government recognizes the benefits but isn't going to give up any control and loosen the reins nor has it.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 31, 2008, 04:11:18 PM
Quote
I've set up finance and accounting departments for two international firms over there and based on my experience the capitalist ethic is taking hold by leaps and bounds. The government recognizes the benefits but isn't going to give up any control and loosen the reins nor has it.
Goody for you. Sounds like pre Industrial Revolution America. Collective bargaining is on the way.