What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Elections in 3-D!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Kepler said:
Oh, please. :rolleyes:

Obama is no FDR, but he's no Clinton, either. There are more ways to lead than doing the "make my day" rooster strut.
Click to expand...

I was unfair in my earlier rant. But really, (and I'm not talking about starting wars) it would be nice to have a president who was willing to take unpopular stances, for the actual long-term good of the country, and try to work on shifting public opinion to follow him or her there (and I'm not talking about making soda pop an illegal drug). While avoiding blaming or scapegoating others that we see so much of.
I'm talking about things that matter, like actually delaying social security/medicare eligibility to 70 years, and actually building necessary energy infrastructure (nuke plants, mega pipelines) that we need for long-term viability.
I know it's too much to ask, and that Obama's the best option we have right now. I just wish he wasn't such a pushover to the special interests.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Quote from the CEO of Carbonite. A sponsor that has pulled it's support for Rush.

“No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

I highly doubt rush was sorry at all, unless it's for the loss of ad revenue. He cares about ratings period, and as long as the ratings are good, he will continue to insult people.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

manurespreader said:
I highly doubt rush was sorry at all, unless it's for the loss of ad revenue. He cares about ratings period, and as long as the ratings are good, he will continue to insult people.
Click to expand...

No one believes it.
"I know he apologized, but forgive me if I doubt his sincerity, given that he lost at least six advertisers," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." Limbaugh apologized Saturday after criticizing Sandra Fluke on the air for her position on access to birth control.

“Rush Limbaugh in that apology said he was trying to be humorous," said Wasserman Schultz. "I don’t know any woman in America … that thinks that being called a slut is funny.”
Click to expand...

Romneys showing he's afraid of Rush.

Romney has come under attack from the left for his tepid response to what has become a political firestorm. Asked last week about Limbaugh's comments, Romney said, "I'll just say this, which is it's not the language I would have used."
Click to expand...

The way that is stated Romney agrees with what Rush said, just not the language he used. What a drip slime.



http://www.politico.com/blogs/polit...chair-doesnt-buy-limbaugh-apology-116345.html
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

I liked George Will's quote
“John Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff. And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

TimP said:
It shows the sad state of America when one can make lots of money spewing intolerance and hate but not by fighting for social justice.
Click to expand...
Fascinating that this guy is a mouthpiece for the same party that claims the moral high ground and wants to bring God back to our country. Makes me wonder what Jesus would have done with Rush. How can a party can hold someone like him to their bosom at the same time they cry about lost values and the need to recapture the values we once had. It would seem like this should be impossible even for the most dumb sheep.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

leswp1 said:
Fascinating that this guy is a mouthpiece for the same party that claims the moral high ground and wants to bring God back to our country. Makes me wonder what Jesus would have done with Rush.
Click to expand...
Jesus called Mary Magdalene a slut, right? It was in Luke or Matthew, I think.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

geezer said:
I was unfair in my earlier rant. But really, (and I'm not talking about starting wars) it would be nice to have a president who was willing to take unpopular stances, for the actual long-term good of the country, and try to work on shifting public opinion to follow him or her there (and I'm not talking about making soda pop an illegal drug). While avoiding blaming or scapegoating others that we see so much of.
I'm talking about things that matter, like actually delaying social security/medicare eligibility to 70 years, and actually building necessary energy infrastructure (nuke plants, mega pipelines) that we need for long-term viability.
I know it's too much to ask, and that Obama's the best option we have right now. I just wish he wasn't such a pushover to the special interests.
Click to expand...
OK, I agree with all of this.

And I do agree with you that Obama can, at times, be a weather vane. "My opinion on gay marriage is still evolving." That's a load -- it means, "obviously I'm fine with gay marriage, but I don't gain anything by just saying it, and it might cost me OH, so I'll sit tight."

Eisenhower didn't say "I am re-evaluating whether to send troops to protect kids integrating schools," he just did it. LBJ didn't say "hmm... gotta think about the Voting Rights Act. Wouldn't be prudent at this time." He signed it, knowing full well as he did that "there goes the South." That was principled leadership.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

424898_10150595355856275_177486166274_9517432_316102721_n.jpg
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

I'm about 90% sure it's time for me to give up. The debate is sure to drop further into the mud every cycle, with no longer any hope of recovery. So if I don't see you again, so long, enjoy your politics.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

geezer said:
I'm about 90% sure it's time for me to give up. The debate is sure to drop further into the mud every cycle, with no longer any hope of recovery. So if I don't see you again, so long, enjoy your politics.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I hope you stay; your comments are valuable and you improve the overall tone.

This place is very much like hockey -- its a hard checking area and sometimes people come in with elbows high. But like pond hockey, we self-police and the vast majority of the time we self-correct.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

geezer said:
I'm about 90% sure it's time for me to give up. The debate is sure to drop further into the mud every cycle, with no longer any hope of recovery. So if I don't see you again, so long, enjoy your politics.
Click to expand...
Nah, you ignore the flamers/extremists and enjoy the posters who have something that have fairly non-partisan observations.

I have a serious question, this is totally non-sarcastic- I understand the folks that think the GOP is right because of their religious beliefs. I don't understand how the GOP attracts the poor working class non-fundamentalist voter. I know there are ideologues who would believe it was for the better good of the country but most people are driven by self interest, what will benefit them the most in the long run and security. The GOP seems to be against all the things that would benefit a poor working stiff to help them get ahead or provide the net if things don't go well. They stump against many of the federal programs that people utilize for unemployment, healthcare, education, unions (who ostensibly help the little guy), minimum wage stuff, etc. I can understand the well off people wanting the GOP because they might feel they have no need for those things. I don't get someone who is living on the edge saying take away the thing that could protect me from things that could happen like losing job, being unable to afford healthcare, not being able to afford education for their kids, not being able to work at a wage that allows subsistence.

I am not currently in a position I to need those things but I know a lot of hard working, frugal folks who still are barely making it and utilize all these services. I don't talk politics with these folks. The people I do hear stuff from are all well off and wouldn't suffer if those programs were to go away. Our area has a large population of working class and a good portion of them are working poor. Despite this we are a little pocket of GOPism in what you would consider a liberal state. Our local media is very skewed to the GOP. Stories show all the suffering, bemoan the lack of resources for who ever is featured and then the article next to it expound on the need to cut things because the gov't spends too much. The dichotomy confuses me.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

les - the answer to your question was set to music by one Mr. Garth Brooks in "American Honky Tonk Bar Association."

When Uncle Sam dips in your pocket
for most things you don't mind,
but when your dollar goes
to all of those standing in the welfare line....

(no, I didn't have to look that up!)

There's a individualistic, rugged streak among the lower working class, who are fiercely proud that they can make it on their own (whether this is actually true or not is neither here nor there). They may be teetering on the edge themselves, but until they are actually over the cliff, they have a disdain for those who are taking handouts and for the government which provides them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top