Eagledad Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 >>YIs being subversive what you teach your scouts about citizenship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Who was it that said: "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say, 'We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!'" Now, that does not mean it's fair to complain that the president's tie is not red, white, and blue enough or that his American Flag lapel pin should be larger, or smaller. It means his policies and decisions about the government are up for discussion. Can we wait for him to do something before we strike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtis Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I THINK RUSH IS STILL USING THOSE DRUGS HE WAS PUSHING A FEW YEARS AGO. I HONESTLY FEEL THAT IF IT WERE NOT FOR PEPOPLE LIKE RUSH AND HANNITY OBAMA WOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT NOW. THIS IS A GREAT COUNTRY AND THE SCOUTS BOY OIR GIRL ARE GREAT ORGANIZATINS. MY BROTHER AND I WORE THE SCOUT UNIFORM AND A FEW YEARS LATER WE BOTH WORE THE UNIFORM OF THE MARINE CORPS. VIVA LA USA. RUSH HAS TO BE IGNORED WHEN HE IS NOT MAKING ANY SENSE AND RIGHT NOW HIM AND HANNITY ARE NOT MAKING MUCH SENSE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 Limbaugh told his listeners that he was asked by a major American print publication to offer a 400-word statement explaining his hope for the Obama presidency. Rush said, "I dont need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." This isn't dissent. Dissent is "I don't like anything he stands for and his policies will fail." What Limbaugh said is subversive, bordering on treason. Can you imagine the uproar if some lefty pundit said, "I hope Bush fails". I do remember the righties saying, "We are at war, you might disagree with Bush, but you must support him. Anything less, is treason." What's different now? I'm not an angry winner. I'm just pointing out sore losers. Seeing if they like some of the medicine they've been dishing out for 8 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottteng Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 What is lost in this debate is that these stands are based on principles. Rush was against the Bush administration on the medicare drug benefit, the immigration bill, and support of McCain/Feingold. He was also in Bill Clinton's corner on NAFTA when many on the right opposed it. The context of his remarks is in the transcript for all to see. The Democrat party have brought this upon themselves now we get to display our IMPEACH OBAMA stickers for the next four years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Yah, I'm not sure anyone cares what Rush says except for comic value. It was George W. Bush who led us whole hog down the path of Socialism, with socializing the banking industry, the mortgage industry, the auto industry, and on and on. Where was Rush? My preference would have been to let 'em all fail (and then rescind director immunity and let the shareholders confiscate the personal wealth of every director who allowed that behavior). They're failin' anyway, eh? But given the course that was set by W. & friends, all I can hope for now is that Obama will succeed in managing this thing better and pulling us out of the fryer. And then empower a Justice Department to prosecute some of these crooks, and the regulatory agencies to get control of this game of highly leveraged gambling with other people's money. The antidote to socialism is law and prudent regulation, eh? Law and prudent regulation allows private enterprise to thrive without allowing private enterprise to cheat or steal. That's somethin' that Bush and his big-government neocons were always too intellectually challenged to understand. Beavah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunny2862 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I hope things never get to where I might have an impeach anyone sticker riding on my car. I reserve the right to disagree with the policies of any President. I also can't say that EVERYTHING ANY President has done in my lifetime has met muster throughout their tenure. So what's with all of the hostility on either side? If it's really about the idea, then why can't we discuss the idea? The issue comes to where the idea ACTUALLY impacts my life, and probably when it ACTUALLY impacts yours too. If it's about my President vs. your President then I think it's amazing the tolerance people in the Military show when they professionally support the policies of any Sitting President when their personal opinions might be radically opposed. Why can't the populace (edited) respectfully support the Presidency even if they don't like the man or his policies - they at least can openly dissent and press for change thru their elected officials. But why must the dissent take the form of villainizing the person who is probably acting in good faith to what they actually believe to be the correct action? (end edit) And what's with booing a President as he leaves? No matter how happy one is to see him go? I can see being glad, even throwing a goodbye party, but booing and catcalling one one his way out is pretty lame. Shouldn't it really be about what is the best answer on any policy for all of us? Even if occasionally (not regularly) the majority takes one for the team? Really wish Congress could figure out this aspect. But then as Chris Matthews assures us (paraphrased) "Politics isn't about governance, it's about power." - what was I thinking? (This message has been edited by Gunny2862) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 >>It was George W. Bush who led us whole hog down the path of Socialism, with socializing the banking industry, the mortgage industry, the auto industry, and on and on. Where was Rush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 When Rush was pontificating against Bush policies, did he indicate he hoped Bush fail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Borderline treason Gern? You should read the Constitution Gern. It defines treason in the United States. What Rush is doing obviously is not that . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 Ann Coulter wrote a book titled "Treason". Her basic premise, that liberals who don't support the president's agenda are guilty of treason. What Rush did does qualify under her terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I forogt that Coulter now trumps the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Gern, Rush was hoping that Bush would fail in the bailouts. If Obama steers a course away from socialism, then Rush and many others will applaud him and support his efforts. If he continues down a path set by Bush hurtling into socialism, then Rush and many of us will oppose the course. As the left correctly pointed out in regards to the current war, it is patriotic to dissent in a constructive manner. It is not patriotic to support our troops in a conflict but it is always OK to question whether we should be in the conflict to begin with. Obama will have his way for awhile at least. The left did hope that Bush would fail because they do not agree with many of his policies. Many on the right do not agree with the policies Obama campaigned upon but the country has spoken and we will go down that path. To expect everyone to be happy and supportive is not realistic in a democracy (or more correctly, a republic). If there is no dissent in a constructive manner, then we have lost our freedom. Perhaps, it would sound better if Rush had said that he hopes that Obama's policies fail to be enacted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 I've previously stated that dissent is good. Look at what happened without it. From 2000 to 2006, Bush had a rubberstamp congress. He got everything he wanted without challenge. Zero vetos. Dissent, if at all present, was silenced or ignored. Now Obama faces an equally agreeable congress who can give him everything he wants. Will he ignore his opponents as Bush did, or will he welcome debate and dissent. That has yet to be determined. Hoping he fails isn't a good start to working together for a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 >>Hoping he fails isn't a good start to working together for a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now