OT: Conservatives Revel In America’s Olympic Defeat

[sdgrrl]

I didn’t mean to offend, I felt I was commenting on the ridiculousness of the original poster who wanted to darn an entire city based on a few dirty politicians. I will keep from using foul language and I have never before used that kind of language.

Also, please look at at the beginning of the thread and you will see what i was referencing. I don’t go on this to throw some nasty ‘F’ bombs without provocation.

[Anonymous]

[quote=meadandale]Wow, I can name three of the top of my head that are liberal analogues to Rush, Hannity and Beck:

Rachel Maddow
Keith Olberman
Al Franken

I’ll throw in Paul Krugman as a bonus…[/quote]

Research how much these folks make and I think you’ll find that Limbaugh brings in far more than all of the above. I think it’s safe to assume that the size of a commentator’s income is in proportion to the size of their audience.

If we act as good piggs and “bring data” to the discussion, I’m willing to bet that it will support the assertion that Limbaugh does “command a huge fanatical audience” that far is bigger than any personality on the left.

[Anonymous]

[quote=meadandale]Wow, I can name three of the top of my head that are liberal analogues to Rush, Hannity and Beck:

Rachel Maddow
Keith Olberman
Al Franken

I’ll throw in Paul Krugman as a bonus…[/quote]

Research how much these folks make and I think you’ll find that Limbaugh brings in far more than all of the above. I think it’s safe to assume that the size of a commentator’s income is in proportion to the size of their audience.

If we act as good piggs and “bring data” to the discussion, I’m willing to bet that it will support the assertion that Limbaugh does “command a huge fanatical audience” that far is bigger than any personality on the left.

[Anonymous]

[quote=meadandale]Wow, I can name three of the top of my head that are liberal analogues to Rush, Hannity and Beck:

Rachel Maddow
Keith Olberman
Al Franken

I’ll throw in Paul Krugman as a bonus…[/quote]

Research how much these folks make and I think you’ll find that Limbaugh brings in far more than all of the above. I think it’s safe to assume that the size of a commentator’s income is in proportion to the size of their audience.

If we act as good piggs and “bring data” to the discussion, I’m willing to bet that it will support the assertion that Limbaugh does “command a huge fanatical audience” that far is bigger than any personality on the left.

[Anonymous]

[quote=meadandale]Wow, I can name three of the top of my head that are liberal analogues to Rush, Hannity and Beck:

Rachel Maddow
Keith Olberman
Al Franken

I’ll throw in Paul Krugman as a bonus…[/quote]

Research how much these folks make and I think you’ll find that Limbaugh brings in far more than all of the above. I think it’s safe to assume that the size of a commentator’s income is in proportion to the size of their audience.

If we act as good piggs and “bring data” to the discussion, I’m willing to bet that it will support the assertion that Limbaugh does “command a huge fanatical audience” that far is bigger than any personality on the left.

[Anonymous]

[quote=meadandale]Wow, I can name three of the top of my head that are liberal analogues to Rush, Hannity and Beck:

Rachel Maddow
Keith Olberman
Al Franken

I’ll throw in Paul Krugman as a bonus…[/quote]

Research how much these folks make and I think you’ll find that Limbaugh brings in far more than all of the above. I think it’s safe to assume that the size of a commentator’s income is in proportion to the size of their audience.

If we act as good piggs and “bring data” to the discussion, I’m willing to bet that it will support the assertion that Limbaugh does “command a huge fanatical audience” that far is bigger than any personality on the left.

[ucodegen]

I agree ucodegen. But in order to return to those values we need to dismantle the social safety net. I could support that if we were truly honest at returning to those values of self-sufficiency.

Remember that the Right now is arguing against universal health care because of rationing. The Right should SUPPORT rationing (including medicare benefits). If citizens want something beyond the minimum (socialized health care or not) they should save and pay for it themselves.

I am generally considered a ‘conservative’ and have no problems with this. One of the things that is indirectly being pointed out by the ‘Right’, is that without a form of rationing, nationalized health care would not work. Costs would spiral, but how can you argue when nationalized health is presented as ‘all the health care you need with no additional costs’? We need real debate on this, not the far left labeling people who ask questions as ‘un-American’ or the far right claiming ‘death squads’.

Originally, the ‘safety net’ was supposed to be bare subsistence, below poverty level. I have no problem with this. I have no problem with rationing on health care either. Anything additional is self pay. Somehow, the ‘safety net’ has become something more comfortable than it was supposed to be. Why get off welfare when you can just ‘drop another baby’ and get more.. octamom style?

NOTE: Medicare is an insurance system.. oddly the first attempt at nationalized health system for older adults. It takes about 2.9% of your income during your lifetime.. (actually 1.45% from you and 1.45% from your employer). I can see a problem trying to restrict senior who paid into the system when it wasn’t restricted. The amount paid into it vs. amount being received begs many questions as to where is all that money going?

NOTE: Medicaid is not an insurance program, it rides on US Social Security system, but is better states as part of a welfare medical aid system.

Another note as to religion:
*I tend to be ‘conservative’, but I am not a pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
*I know several people who vote ‘liberal’, but are very pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
One needs to keep in mind that being ‘Republican’ does not mean that you are strongly religious, and being ‘Democrat’ doesn’t mean you are not strongly religious. I have several Catholic acquaintances who vote Democratic.

[ucodegen]

I agree ucodegen. But in order to return to those values we need to dismantle the social safety net. I could support that if we were truly honest at returning to those values of self-sufficiency.

Remember that the Right now is arguing against universal health care because of rationing. The Right should SUPPORT rationing (including medicare benefits). If citizens want something beyond the minimum (socialized health care or not) they should save and pay for it themselves.

I am generally considered a ‘conservative’ and have no problems with this. One of the things that is indirectly being pointed out by the ‘Right’, is that without a form of rationing, nationalized health care would not work. Costs would spiral, but how can you argue when nationalized health is presented as ‘all the health care you need with no additional costs’? We need real debate on this, not the far left labeling people who ask questions as ‘un-American’ or the far right claiming ‘death squads’.

Originally, the ‘safety net’ was supposed to be bare subsistence, below poverty level. I have no problem with this. I have no problem with rationing on health care either. Anything additional is self pay. Somehow, the ‘safety net’ has become something more comfortable than it was supposed to be. Why get off welfare when you can just ‘drop another baby’ and get more.. octamom style?

NOTE: Medicare is an insurance system.. oddly the first attempt at nationalized health system for older adults. It takes about 2.9% of your income during your lifetime.. (actually 1.45% from you and 1.45% from your employer). I can see a problem trying to restrict senior who paid into the system when it wasn’t restricted. The amount paid into it vs. amount being received begs many questions as to where is all that money going?

NOTE: Medicaid is not an insurance program, it rides on US Social Security system, but is better states as part of a welfare medical aid system.

Another note as to religion:
*I tend to be ‘conservative’, but I am not a pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
*I know several people who vote ‘liberal’, but are very pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
One needs to keep in mind that being ‘Republican’ does not mean that you are strongly religious, and being ‘Democrat’ doesn’t mean you are not strongly religious. I have several Catholic acquaintances who vote Democratic.

[ucodegen]

I agree ucodegen. But in order to return to those values we need to dismantle the social safety net. I could support that if we were truly honest at returning to those values of self-sufficiency.

Remember that the Right now is arguing against universal health care because of rationing. The Right should SUPPORT rationing (including medicare benefits). If citizens want something beyond the minimum (socialized health care or not) they should save and pay for it themselves.

I am generally considered a ‘conservative’ and have no problems with this. One of the things that is indirectly being pointed out by the ‘Right’, is that without a form of rationing, nationalized health care would not work. Costs would spiral, but how can you argue when nationalized health is presented as ‘all the health care you need with no additional costs’? We need real debate on this, not the far left labeling people who ask questions as ‘un-American’ or the far right claiming ‘death squads’.

Originally, the ‘safety net’ was supposed to be bare subsistence, below poverty level. I have no problem with this. I have no problem with rationing on health care either. Anything additional is self pay. Somehow, the ‘safety net’ has become something more comfortable than it was supposed to be. Why get off welfare when you can just ‘drop another baby’ and get more.. octamom style?

NOTE: Medicare is an insurance system.. oddly the first attempt at nationalized health system for older adults. It takes about 2.9% of your income during your lifetime.. (actually 1.45% from you and 1.45% from your employer). I can see a problem trying to restrict senior who paid into the system when it wasn’t restricted. The amount paid into it vs. amount being received begs many questions as to where is all that money going?

NOTE: Medicaid is not an insurance program, it rides on US Social Security system, but is better states as part of a welfare medical aid system.

Another note as to religion:
*I tend to be ‘conservative’, but I am not a pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
*I know several people who vote ‘liberal’, but are very pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
One needs to keep in mind that being ‘Republican’ does not mean that you are strongly religious, and being ‘Democrat’ doesn’t mean you are not strongly religious. I have several Catholic acquaintances who vote Democratic.

[ucodegen]

I agree ucodegen. But in order to return to those values we need to dismantle the social safety net. I could support that if we were truly honest at returning to those values of self-sufficiency.

Remember that the Right now is arguing against universal health care because of rationing. The Right should SUPPORT rationing (including medicare benefits). If citizens want something beyond the minimum (socialized health care or not) they should save and pay for it themselves.

I am generally considered a ‘conservative’ and have no problems with this. One of the things that is indirectly being pointed out by the ‘Right’, is that without a form of rationing, nationalized health care would not work. Costs would spiral, but how can you argue when nationalized health is presented as ‘all the health care you need with no additional costs’? We need real debate on this, not the far left labeling people who ask questions as ‘un-American’ or the far right claiming ‘death squads’.

Originally, the ‘safety net’ was supposed to be bare subsistence, below poverty level. I have no problem with this. I have no problem with rationing on health care either. Anything additional is self pay. Somehow, the ‘safety net’ has become something more comfortable than it was supposed to be. Why get off welfare when you can just ‘drop another baby’ and get more.. octamom style?

NOTE: Medicare is an insurance system.. oddly the first attempt at nationalized health system for older adults. It takes about 2.9% of your income during your lifetime.. (actually 1.45% from you and 1.45% from your employer). I can see a problem trying to restrict senior who paid into the system when it wasn’t restricted. The amount paid into it vs. amount being received begs many questions as to where is all that money going?

NOTE: Medicaid is not an insurance program, it rides on US Social Security system, but is better states as part of a welfare medical aid system.

Another note as to religion:
*I tend to be ‘conservative’, but I am not a pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
*I know several people who vote ‘liberal’, but are very pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
One needs to keep in mind that being ‘Republican’ does not mean that you are strongly religious, and being ‘Democrat’ doesn’t mean you are not strongly religious. I have several Catholic acquaintances who vote Democratic.

[ucodegen]

I agree ucodegen. But in order to return to those values we need to dismantle the social safety net. I could support that if we were truly honest at returning to those values of self-sufficiency.

Remember that the Right now is arguing against universal health care because of rationing. The Right should SUPPORT rationing (including medicare benefits). If citizens want something beyond the minimum (socialized health care or not) they should save and pay for it themselves.

I am generally considered a ‘conservative’ and have no problems with this. One of the things that is indirectly being pointed out by the ‘Right’, is that without a form of rationing, nationalized health care would not work. Costs would spiral, but how can you argue when nationalized health is presented as ‘all the health care you need with no additional costs’? We need real debate on this, not the far left labeling people who ask questions as ‘un-American’ or the far right claiming ‘death squads’.

Originally, the ‘safety net’ was supposed to be bare subsistence, below poverty level. I have no problem with this. I have no problem with rationing on health care either. Anything additional is self pay. Somehow, the ‘safety net’ has become something more comfortable than it was supposed to be. Why get off welfare when you can just ‘drop another baby’ and get more.. octamom style?

NOTE: Medicare is an insurance system.. oddly the first attempt at nationalized health system for older adults. It takes about 2.9% of your income during your lifetime.. (actually 1.45% from you and 1.45% from your employer). I can see a problem trying to restrict senior who paid into the system when it wasn’t restricted. The amount paid into it vs. amount being received begs many questions as to where is all that money going?

NOTE: Medicaid is not an insurance program, it rides on US Social Security system, but is better states as part of a welfare medical aid system.

Another note as to religion:
*I tend to be ‘conservative’, but I am not a pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
*I know several people who vote ‘liberal’, but are very pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
One needs to keep in mind that being ‘Republican’ does not mean that you are strongly religious, and being ‘Democrat’ doesn’t mean you are not strongly religious. I have several Catholic acquaintances who vote Democratic.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
ucodegen, I don’t see an equivalent to Rush on the left — someone who despite his own personal failings still commands a huge fanatical audience.
[/quote]

Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson
BILL CLINTON

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
ucodegen, I don’t see an equivalent to Rush on the left — someone who despite his own personal failings still commands a huge fanatical audience.
[/quote]

Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson
BILL CLINTON

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
ucodegen, I don’t see an equivalent to Rush on the left — someone who despite his own personal failings still commands a huge fanatical audience.
[/quote]

Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson
BILL CLINTON

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
ucodegen, I don’t see an equivalent to Rush on the left — someone who despite his own personal failings still commands a huge fanatical audience.
[/quote]

Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson
BILL CLINTON

[Author]

Posts