Limbaugh: Obama a "classic case of affirmative action rearing it's ugly head"

[7960]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

But what has he actually done?

well, he's the presumptive nominee....that's an accomplishment!

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

But what has he actually done? What has he accomplished other then saying nothing better then anyone has said it in a long time and getting people excited about change without explaining exaclty what that change will be? What did he do in any elected service position of substance? To quote his favorite bible verse, what has he done for the least of these?

BTW, some of his former staff seem pretty shady and in Tony Resco's case, criminal. But that's Ok, because it wasn't the "insert name of friend here" that he knew.

They ran a bit for that Resco fella in Fox News of all places, and Obama wasn't found in any way to be involved with that guy other than using him as an agent. Any money they knew of that Resco contributed has been passed on to charity.

Change comes with Iraq policy, energy policy, economic policy, foreign policy in general, healthcare, and a variety of domestic issues. There has been plenty of changes outlined by him and what he wants to do that is different than the last 8 years of GOP presidency.

[Swift-Bass]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They ran a bit for that Resco fella in Fox News of all places, and Obama wasn't found in any way to be involved with that guy other than using him as an agent. Any money they knew of that Resco contributed has been passed on to charity.

Change comes with Iraq policy, energy policy, economic policy, foreign policy in general, healthcare, and a variety of domestic issues. There has been plenty of changes outlined by him and what he wants to do that is different than the last 8 years of GOP presidency.

And I would say no big deal. If it wasn't for Bill Ares, and Rev Wright and that other Catholic priest. That's my point. He has a lot of close associations with people that think America is a horrible place. Some that even tried to destroy parts of it.

Why are you comparing Obama's policies to what Bush did? Bush isn't running. Shouldn't you be comparing them to McCain?

BTW, he thinks that we should cut military spending. That's absolutely ridiculous. We are very far from world peace and the last thing we need is another Clinton style downsizing of our military. So when we DO need them they or not at optimum capacity.

He doesn't want to drill for oil, but wants us to get off of foreign oil. that's a good trick.

He wants to play robin hood and steal from the rich to give some to the poor. I've never heard of a more un-American policy.

Foreign policy, he'd sit down with leaders of hostile nations we no pre-conditions in his first term. That's excellent.

Healthcare, show me on universal healthcare system that has succeeded with a population even close to the United States.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

...and the fact that Octavius was screaming racism just goes to show that

Where am I screaming racism? I said "almost" racist...and in the beginging of the post I said a minority candidate is a threat to "some" people, if you think I am talking about you thats your problem. Your reading comprehension sucks

no, that's always his answer to anything having to do with race.

Na, just your racist comments

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

And I would say no big deal. If it wasn't for Bill Ares, and Rev Wright and that other Catholic priest. That's my point. He has a lot of close associations with people that think America is a horrible place. Some that even tried to destroy parts of it.

America has done some horrible things. There is a level of ignorance there if we can't admit that. However I'd be curious to see their efforts to 'destroy' parts of it. I also know a few people of questionable character but I am not guilty by association.

Why are you comparing Obama's policies to what Bush did? Bush isn't running. Shouldn't you be comparing them to McCain?

McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time and his rhetoric doesn't indicate that he plans to change anything.

BTW, he thinks that we should cut military spending. That's absolutely ridiculous. We are very far from world peace and the last thing we need is another Clinton style downsizing of our military. So when we DO need them they or not at optimum capacity.

I believe we should cut it as well. Like any other government programs it is full of bloated and wasteful spending. We currently spend more than the entire world combined on defense.

He doesn't want to drill for oil, but wants us to get off of foreign oil. that's a good trick.

He has a plan that will have independent from middle east oil in 10 years. 14% of our oil comes from there.

He wants to play robin hood and steal from the rich to give some to the poor. I've never heard of a more un-American policy.

A progressive tax system, and taxing the wealthy their fair share is not exactly stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. The middle class puts about 30% of their income toward taxes while the richest americans such as Warren Buffett pay 18%.

Foreign policy, he'd sit down with leaders of hostile nations we no pre-conditions in his first term. That's excellent.

Healthcare, show me on universal healthcare system that has succeeded with a population even close to the United States.

An alternative approach to foreign relations? Because our current policy works so well? Thats not change? You wondered what change he spoke of..there is another one.

His universal healthcare system is not mandated. Its basically making the US govt. another insurance company with affordable rates. Creates some additional competition in the market place. That is why it was criticized by hillary and edwards, because it didn't mandate coverage for everyone.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

And I would say no big deal. If it wasn't for Bill Ares, and Rev Wright and that other Catholic priest. That's my point. He has a lot of close associations with people that think America is a horrible place. Some that even tried to destroy parts of it.

Why are you comparing Obama's policies to what Bush did? Bush isn't running. Shouldn't you be comparing them to McCain?

BTW, he thinks that we should cut military spending. That's absolutely ridiculous. We are very far from world peace and the last thing we need is another Clinton style downsizing of our military. So when we DO need them they or not at optimum capacity.

He doesn't want to drill for oil, but wants us to get off of foreign oil. that's a good trick.

He wants to play robin hood and steal from the rich to give some to the poor. I've never heard of a more un-American policy.

Foreign policy, he'd sit down with leaders of hostile nations we no pre-conditions in his first term. That's excellent.

Healthcare, show me on universal healthcare system that has succeeded with a population even close to the United States.

Damn dude. Welcome to Liberty Lounge!

[Swift-Bass]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

America has done some horrible things. There is a level of ignorance there if we can't admit that. However I'd be curious to see their efforts to 'destroy' parts of it. I also know a few people of questionable character but I am not guilty by association.

Uh...Bill Ares actually blew up government buildings. I'd say that's trying to destroy parts of the country. It's not guilty by association. It questions his judgement of character in others.

McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time and his rhetoric doesn't indicate that he plans to change anything.

But I thought he was such a maverick. Meh...

I believe we should cut it as well. Like any other government programs it is full of bloated and wasteful spending. We currently spend more than the entire world combined on defense.

And spend it on what? There is a reason country and our people are as safe as they are and it's the military, period. Without them we get taken over, invaded, bombed, whatever. But nobody is stupid enough to do that because they know we can take them down without a single boot hitting the ground.

BTW, to cut military spending because of wasteful spending means you'd have to cut every politicians expense budget, security for VIPs, and a host of other wasteful things that politicians take advantage of on a regular basis.

He has a plan that will have independent from middle east oil in 10 years. 14% of our oil comes from there.

Without replacing it from another source? That's a plan I'd like to see.

A progressive tax system, and taxing the wealthy their fair share is not exactly stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. The middle class puts about 30% of their income toward taxes while the richest americans such as Warren Buffett pay 18%.

Person by person you may be correct. However, look at the actual dollar amounts that they pay in income tax:
The Tax Foundation - New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%

And excerpt from that article:
The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

Seems to me they are pulling the weight for most of us already.

An alternative approach to foreign relations? Because our current policy works so well? Thats not change? You wondered what change he spoke of..there is another one.

Can you show me a time in history where appeasing hostile governments worked?

His universal healthcare system is not mandated. Its basically making the US govt. another insurance company with affordable rates. Creates some additional competition in the market place. That is why it was criticized by hillary and edwards, because it didn't mandate coverage for everyone.

However, that still means I have to pay for my plan and for the other guys plan that decides to go with the government's program. Because it has to be paid for with tax dollars. This concept to me is also theft as much as income redistribution.

Why should I have to be forced to help someone else that made bad choices? I'm not talking about injured military or emergency personnel, children born with a chronic illness or other situations like that. But people that smoke for 10 years, get lung cancer and want government help for the chemotherapy. How is that fair to me? I didn't smoke, I didn't tell the other guy to start smoking. But I have to pay for it just the same. Is that a fair concept to you?

[Swift-Bass]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Damn dude. Welcome to Liberty Lounge!

Thanks Stylerod!

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

And spend it on what? There is a reason country and our people are as safe as they are and it's the military, period. Without them we get taken over, invaded, bombed, whatever. But nobody is stupid enough to do that because they know we can take them down without a single boot hitting the ground.

BTW, to cut military spending because of wasteful spending means you'd have to cut every politicians expense budget, security for VIPs, and a host of other wasteful things that politicians take advantage of on a regular basis.

Just to start, I'll give you 9.4 trillion reasons we need to reduce spending where we can.

Without replacing it from another source? That's a plan I'd like to see.

They are interested in diversifying our energy portfolio. Its a combination of things including some stuff that Boone Pickens outlines. Ethanol, hybrids, MPG standards, etc.

Person by person you may be correct. However, look at the actual dollar amounts that they pay in income tax:
The Tax Foundation - New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%

And excerpt from that article:
The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

Seems to me they are pulling the weight for most of us already.

It is widely considered that "fair" for the country is based on percentage. If you talk of the "fair" tax or flat tax you will see an equal percentage for everyone. Right now, percentage wise, the taxes are incredibly one sided to benefit the wealthy. How about we bring the middle class down to 20% and bump the rich to 20%. Fair?

Can you show me a time in history where appeasing hostile governments worked?

Who said we have to go talk to them and appease them? Maybe it would send a strong message when the president himself says "stop this or else". Talking doesn't automatically equal appeasement.

However, that still means I have to pay for my plan and for the other guys plan that decides to go with the government's program. Because it has to be paid for with tax dollars. This concept to me is also theft as much as income redistribution.

Why should I have to be forced to help someone else that made bad choices? I'm not talking about injured military or emergency personnel, children born with a chronic illness or other situations like that. But people that smoke for 10 years, get lung cancer and want government help for the chemotherapy. How is that fair to me? I didn't smoke, I didn't tell the other guy to start smoking. But I have to pay for it just the same. Is that a fair concept to you?

You pay for their bad choices in the form of ridiculous premiums and other healthcare costs. You pay for bad choices by government that has been lobbied to not allow importing of drugs. You pay for the lack of enforcement of immigration laws, forcing billions on to our system.

[Swift-Bass]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Just to start, I'll give you 9.4 trillion reasons we need to reduce spending where we can.

I agree. But to lower our defensive stance and not the umpteen billion in failed social programs is stupid.

They are interested in diversifying our energy portfolio. Its a combination of things including some stuff that Boone Pickens outlines. Ethanol, hybrids, MPG standards, etc.

Ok, and how much of that actually produces more oil while we transition to new energy sources? I'm all for going to new energy sources. But it's stupid to limit or even cut down domestic oil production while we make this change. I thought Obama wanted more jobs and more money to stay in America. Increasing drilling would help to do just that.

It is widely considered that "fair" for the country is based on percentage. If you talk of the "fair" tax or flat tax you will see an equal percentage for everyone. Right now, percentage wise, the taxes are incredibly one sided to benefit the wealthy. How about we bring the middle class down to 20% and bump the rich to 20%. Fair?

I think we should all pay the same percentage of our income. Just because someone worked hard and has earned more then me doesn't give me or the government the right to take a larger percentage of their income. We are all Americans and should all have an equal state in the government. If we tax the higher earners more, we are saying your labor isn't worth as much as this person's over here, so we're taking more of your money. That's not how the founders envisioned federal tax collection and cetainly not how our country started. There wasn't even an income tax until WWI and that was supposed to be repealed at the end of the war...

Who said we have to go talk to them and appease them? Maybe it would send a strong message when the president himself says "stop this or else". Talking doesn't automatically equal appeasement.

Talk without preconditions and possible consequences to hostile governments is useless.

You pay for their bad choices in the form of ridiculous premiums and other healthcare costs. You pay for bad choices by government that has been lobbied to not allow importing of drugs. You pay for the lack of enforcement of immigration laws, forcing billions on to our system.

So you're saying we should at another failed bureaucracy?

[thatguyoverthere]

This thread is incredible.

How can anyone argue with people who think being black is an advantage? My guess is it's those same people who think Obama is an elitist, yet support John "Seven Homes" McCain and thought that the millionaire son of a millionaire son of a millionaire was the kind of guy they could have a beer with.

Sorry, it's still not on the whole advantageous to be black in today's America. That may be a shock to some. I suppose those people think Hillary had an advantage being a woman as well. Gee, then Carol Mosley-Braun should have done just swell in 2004, since she was black and female! Ridiculous. Racist.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Uh...Bill Ares actually blew up government buildings. I'd say that's trying to destroy parts of the country. It's not guilty by association. It questions his judgement of character in others.

It's guilt by association. Don't piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

And spend it on what? There is a reason country and our people are as safe as they are and it's the military, period. Without them we get taken over, invaded, bombed, whatever. But nobody is stupid enough to do that because they know we can take them down without a single boot hitting the ground.

Oh yes? Is that so? How did our military do protecting us on September 11, 2001? How well were we protected from the men with boxcutters? How many more trillions of dollars do you support putting into our military until they can successfully protect us from men with boxcutters? From what I seem to recall, we have had, what, more than 150,000 pairs of boots on the ground overseas since 2001? Tell me, how well did we do "taking down" Osama Bin Laden?

Eisenhower warned us about the military/industrial complex. We still won't listen.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Without replacing it from another source? That's a plan I'd like to see.

It's called alternative energy.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Can you show me a time in history where appeasing hostile governments worked?

Gee, if there was only an example I could cite where the current no appeasement approving president of the US sat next to the de-facto leader of Russia watching a fireworks show while Russia was invading another country by force. So, I guess you're right on that one, but I think one could make the argument that engaging other countries in dialouge is not automatically appeasement. Some folks even believe that it actually might help a little to talk (and listen) to those who are hostile to us. There's an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

However, that still means I have to pay for my plan and for the other guys plan that decides to go with the government's program. Because it has to be paid for with tax dollars. This concept to me is also theft as much as income redistribution.

Why should I have to be forced to help someone else that made bad choices? I'm not talking about injured military or emergency personnel, children born with a chronic illness or other situations like that. But people that smoke for 10 years, get lung cancer and want government help for the chemotherapy. How is that fair to me? I didn't smoke, I didn't tell the other guy to start smoking. But I have to pay for it just the same. Is that a fair concept to you?

People who hold the opinion quoted above are so worried about having to pay those that they feel don't deserve to be cared for, that they are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If they pass the test of deserving treatment, would it then be okay to treat them?

My tax dollars have been taken, turned into weapons, taken to Iraq, and then lost. Only the dimmest of individuals would imagine that those weapons weren't used against American or Allied troops, or innocent civilians.

My point is: If I have to tolerate my tax dollars being spent to harm people, you can certainly gut it up and tolerate that your tax dollars will be used to help people.

When conservatives say that they love America, I often wonder what they really mean. Do they love the buildings? Do they love the land? Do they love the words written in the history books? They certainly don't seem to love the government. So, what is it that they love?

In my own personal opinion, loving one's country also means loving the people of your country. I love the people of my country. They are my countrymen. When they are strong, I am strong. We are united.

These are more than words.

A sense of kinship with others, a sense of brotherhood and sisterhood with the people of your country, the feeling that we are all in the same boat together is embedded in the very fabric of American patriotism. At least, that's my opinion.

If we deserve taxpayer funded military protection from nukes, why don't we deserve taxpayer funded medical protection from brain tumors? Why is it more acceptable to pour trillions of dollars into a military that only seems to end up maiming human life and still can't protect us against even boxcutters, yet somehow at the same time we should also recoil in horror at the mere thought of making healthcare more affordable and accessible for those honest, hard working, rule abiding, tax paying American citizens. You know, your countrymen.

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

He's right. He's not saying the guy isn't smart. He's not saying a black guy can't be president. He's saying, thruthfully, the only reason he is in the place he is is because he's black. Make him a white guy with the exact same background and there is NO WAY he would have ever beat Hillary.

And putting it into the context of Affirmative Action makes sense. How many blacks and minorities got accepted into college with lower grades than white students simply because of the color of their skin?

I actually completely agree with you and Rush. Put into context, it makes perfect sense. The left will try to turn it into a race-issue, but it isn't that. Though, I have to counter-point, Obama is smart and with his choice of Joe Biden (No matter how much I don't like him). Obama is smart enough to surround himself with people who know what they're doing and he'll hit the learning curve real quick.

He's the Commander-in-Chief and has the power to veto, for a smart principled man, I think he's very qualified to make those decisions. He'll think everything through. It still doesn't mean I don't disagree with Rush, it is a case of affirmative action, but I think it's "A"A that worked in the right way. It'll help socially no matter what in the country, America's come a far way.

[7960]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

..John "Seven Homes" McCain and thought that the millionaire son of a millionaire son of a millionaire was the kind of guy they could have a beer with.

mccain's not the millionaire son of a millionaire son of a millionaire

[Swift-Bass]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

This thread is incredible

I agree.

How can anyone argue with people who think being black is an advantage? My guess is it's those same people who think Obama is an elitist, yet support John "Seven Homes" McCain and thought that the millionaire son of a millionaire son of a millionaire was the kind of guy they could have a beer with.

Because McCain doesn't want to take my money and give it to others just because.

Sorry, it's still not on the whole advantageous to be black in today's America. That may be a shock to some. I suppose those people think Hillary had an advantage being a woman as well. Gee, then Carol Mosley-Braun should have done just swell in 2004, since she was black and female! Ridiculous. Racist.

Can I please ask you a question. Why is it that anytime anyone, including a black person like myself, says that a black person's skincolor was an advantage in a certain situation it's racist? Obama himself has talked about race more then most of his opponents. "I know I don't look like the people who have spoken here before" and "They say he doesn't look like all the guys on the 1 and the 5 dollar bills" Who is the one using race to his advantage?

It's guilt by association. Don't piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.

When did I ever say he was guilty of anything criminal? If you have a family member that hangs with peole of shady reputation or prior problems with the law and they STILL hang with those people, would you not question that family members judgement of character in who he picks as friends?

Oh yes? Is that so? How did our military do protecting us on September 11, 2001? How well were we protected from the men with boxcutters? How many more trillions of dollars do you support putting into our military until they can successfully protect us from men with boxcutters? From what I seem to recall, we have had, what, more than 150,000 pairs of boots on the ground overseas since 2001? Tell me, how well did we do "taking down" Osama Bin Laden?

Eisenhower warned us about the military/industrial complex. We still won't listen.

Well, that would actually be the fault of the intelligence agencies that weren't allowed to talk to each other because of walls put up by Clinton's adminitration. But that's another story.

As far as Bin Laden goes. It's true we haven't gotten/killed him yet, but Al-Quida has been destroyed in Iraq and is running in Afganistan. That's because of our military efforts.

I believe that the military as a whole should be the federal government's largest expense. The first job of the government is to protect it's citizens. How can we be protected without a strong military?

It's called alternative energy.

And since NONE of those technologies will be a viable replacement for oil for at least 10 years if not longer, what do we do in the mean time?

Gee, if there was only an example I could cite where the current no appeasement approving president of the US sat next to the de-facto leader of Russia watching a fireworks show while Russia was invading another country by force. So, I guess you're right on that one, but I think one could make the argument that engaging other countries in dialouge is not automatically appeasement. Some folks even believe that it actually might help a little to talk (and listen) to those who are hostile to us. There's an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."

Yep, go Nixon...wait...wasn't he a republican?

People who hold the opinion quoted above are so worried about having to pay those that they feel don't deserve to be cared for, that they are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If they pa