Steele to Rush: I’m sorry; Update: Beck, Coulter knock Steele; Update: DNC chair hits Steele
posted at 6:36 pm on March 2, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Rahm Emanuel yesterday:
Mr. Limbaugh has “called for President Obama to fail. That’s his view,” Mr. Emanuel said. “And whenever a Republican criticizes him, they have to run back and apologize to him and say they were misunderstood.”
Michael Steele today:
“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”…
“I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said…
“He brings a very important message to the American people to wake up and pay attention to what the administration is doing,” Steele said. “Number two, there are those out there who want to look at what he’s saying as incendiary and divisive and ugly. That’s what I was trying to say. It didn’t come out that way. … He does what he does best, which is provoke: He provokes thought, he provokes the left. And they’re clearly the ones who are most excited about him.”
Asked if he planned to apologize, Steele said: “I wasn’t trying to offend anybody. So, yeah, if he’s offended, I’d say: Look, I’m not in the business of hurting people’s feelings here. … My job is to try to bring us all together.”
Rush’s fans will hold Steele in contempt for criticizing him in the first place and Rush’s critics will hold him in contempt for apologizing now. Well played, sir. Exit question: Whose contrition was more groveling, Steele’s or Phil Gingrey’s?
Update: Coulter repeats the boss’s point from earlier today about how it’s perfectly okay to criticize Rush. Since when? Did CPAC pass a resolution?
Update: Rod Dreher skewers Steele: “Please Rush, don’t hurt me!”
Update: Tim Kaine seizes the moment:
“I was briefly encouraged by the courageous comments made my counterpart in the Republican Party over the weekend challenging Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party and referring to his show as ‘incendiary’ and ‘ugly.’ However, Chairman Steele’s reversal this evening and his apology to Limbaugh proves the unfortunate point that Limbaugh is the leading force behind the Republican Party, its politics and its obstruction of President Obama’s agenda in Washington.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
Awesome.
Spirit of 1776 on March 2, 2009 at 10:45 PM
DeathToMediaHacks on March 2, 2009 at 10:27 PM
You actually expected someone to agree with you?
Try harder, this attempt of yours was pretty sad.
Bishop on March 2, 2009 at 10:45 PM
And if he’d been enlisted in the ranks of welfare recipients instead it’s almost certain he wouldn’t be where he is today.
FloatingRock on March 2, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Entelechy,
I saw that entry in Wiki yesterday when I was trying to find a list of Sowell’s books. His bio came to mind when I was reading the comments here.
INC on March 2, 2009 at 10:46 PM
“Dems gloat after Rush awards himself sole custody of Steele’s testicles.”
Ouch.
getalife on March 2, 2009 at 10:48 PM
You’re right. We wouldn’t be reading him, quoting him and benefiting from his analysis and wisdom.
INC on March 2, 2009 at 10:49 PM
I know, I know. That’s why Nobel Prize winning economists support him too. On TOP of that, many of your fellow Republicans support him as well.
Oh, wait. Anyone that disagrees with your ideology is a sell-out, cast-off, idiot, stupid, etc., etc.
THIS IS WHY YOU ARE LOSING!
Your ideology leaves no room for dissent.
ckoeber on March 2, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Actually, that’s an extreme position. Realistically speaking, not everything can be done by a person if there is no society. But, philosophically, for conservatives, the society can only create a very basic support structure, and instead let the individual make or break their own lives.
If you argue the extreme on the liberal perspective, that too is untenable. That relies on the assumption that the government can create a sufficient safety net for all disadvantaged people. But, the money will have to come from businesses, which may fold up because of high taxes. Most of the businesses in this country are SMB, and for them, they might consider it a better idea to be a part of an ever increasing government bureaucracy than toil hard for their own business. Also, it assumes that increase government does not lead to big corruption, to counter which you only have to look at Blago and Stevens.
peter_griffin on March 2, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Then it follows; are you pro-life?
And do you actually support the concept of Liberty?
Just so there’s no confusion:
Liberty 1. a)The state of being free from control or restriction. b)The right to act, believe, or express oneself as one chooses. c) The state of being free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. 2)Freedom from undue or unjust governmental control. 3) A right to engage in certain actions without interference or control. …
(From Websters)
FloatingRock on March 2, 2009 at 10:56 PM
“David Frum slams Limbaugh, too.”
There’s a shock; Limbaugh never said anything that could be taken as slamming Frum, did he?
(/sarc, in case you need the tag)
notropis on March 2, 2009 at 10:57 PM
OK, and I am 100% supportive of your efforts to stay within your means.
What you must understand is not everyone’s situation is like yours. Some people did not have the option to move.
It’s easy to be dismissive until you actually hear and see what is going on.
ckoeber on March 2, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Sweet, because your “idiology” was sooooo supportive of Messrs Reagan, Bush and Bush. Smiles surround me and warm my entire being.
Entelechy on March 2, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Where does Steele say, “I’m sorry.”
Ann Coulter didn’t say anything resembling what you claim, either.
Must be amazing to have the kind of “insight” that it takes to “re-interpret” what people say.
Why would a conservative want to foment hostility on his website?
JannyMae on March 2, 2009 at 11:00 PM
The Nobel Prize winning economists are part of the reason we’re in this mess in the first place. The Nobel Prize has lost it’s stature.
Having said that, I vote Ckoeber as the best of the new trolls, (for lack of a better word). S/he articulates actual arguments, (wrong as they may be), rather than relying purely on snark.
FloatingRock on March 2, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Dissenting Opinion?
Death, Slavery, and Misery
You’ve a right to your opinion, but it lacks an American personality, if you get my drift.
Saltysam on March 2, 2009 at 11:06 PM
I hope you’ll answer these questions….
FloatingRock on March 2, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Since when in any of my posts did I argue to GIVE people money simply because they are an American or let people just GET stuff because they asked.
I do not argue for a welfare state. Instead, I argue for a state that allows people who WANT to go to school to PAY for that school at a FAIR PRICE.
Is it fair to charge someone $100,000 for tuition when just four years ago it was worth $50,000-60,000?
How about having Americans constantly work for LOWER wages for doing the same job?
I understand no one came for you. Depending on your story, no one may have needed to come for you. Then again, you may have needed help but it could not be provided. In either case, that DOES NOT make your situation equal to everyone else.
Not everyone’s struggle is the same.
ckoeber on March 2, 2009 at 11:08 PM
You must be knew here or that statement never would have entered your mind.
FloatingRock on March 2, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Considering the amount of dissent on this board each and every day on each and every post. Wow.
There are great circles of agreement, but within those circles, talk about individualism. It’s here.
INC on March 2, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Quote of the Year
Entelechy on March 2, 2009 at 11:16 PM
It appears you’re responding to material back before 10:00, but I’ll be around for a while looking forward to your answer.
FloatingRock on March 2, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Dude, you’re wasting your time. In order to be a conservative you have to be wilfully ignorant of the causes and social inequality. Its much easier to think we live in a perfect meritocracy, or that all poor people are that way because they are lazy or ignorant. It’s too difficult to tackle those issues in a mature manner. So they simply don’t. It’s a choice.
crr6 on March 2, 2009 at 11:21 PM
I knew there was a strategy. If there are problems, ignore it. It’s the person’s fault!
ckoeber on March 2, 2009 at 11:23 PM
“you have to be wilfully ignorant of the causes and social inequality.”
???
But it helps to be at least semi-literate.
notropis on March 2, 2009 at 11:23 PM
If you sit back and let Ckoeber do the heavy lifting for you and then maybe you’ll get a bonus in your next welfare check.
FloatingRock on March 2, 2009 at 11:24 PM
That’s exactly why I come to HA, every night.
peter_griffin on March 2, 2009 at 11:24 PM
I will answer your pro-life/pro-choice question in a moment.
ckoeber on March 2, 2009 at 11:24 PM
The preview button is my friend.
crr6 on March 2, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Your ideology leaves no room for dissent.
ckoeber on March 2, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Joe Lieberman-Democ…er…Independent from Connecticut is on line two, he wants to discuss your claim.
Bishop on March 2, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Thanks. I’m more interested in your answer to the second question though.
FloatingRock on March 2, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Need to hunt down talking points?
OmahaConservative on March 2, 2009 at 11:29 PM
That is simply not true. A lot of people are paying for mortages where the value of the property is FAR lower than the mortage itself. Yet, the rates of the mortage (via ARMS type loans)has drastically shot up.
As for payment, once the economy stabilizes, then we can focus on debt-reduction. You can’t reduce debt without an economy.
ckoeber on March 2, 2009 at 11:31 PM
You are certainly earnest in your beliefs, sweetheart. Gotta’ give you credit for that
OmahaConservative on March 2, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Define “fair.” You won’t be able to.
In addition, just because someone wants to go school doesn’t mean they can do the work.
Again, define fair.
(You can’t.)
And why is it fair for these schools to charge these outrageous amounts when up until 6 weeks ago, they had billions of dollars in invested endowments, like Harvard, which still gets millions in grants from the Federal Government as well?
First of all, wages were up, not down.
And doing the same job as whom?
Ah! The old “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” thesis from good old Marx!
But some animals are more equal than others on the Animal Farm.
Jenfidel on March 2, 2009 at 11:35 PM
OK. So by giving what do you hope to accomplish?
ckoeber on March 2, 2009 at 11:36 PM
ckoeber:
Consider the case of the husband and wife with the combined income of 250K plus. Not that it matters, but let’s pretend just for fun that they’re not Kennedys and that they actually earned their money. How are they to be viewed and treated by society? Will they be able to afford a nice home, a couple of nice cars, and maybe a private or parochial school education for their kids? Perhaps, if they continue to work hard, are reasonably frugal with their expenses, wise in their investments, and taxed at a fair and reasonable level. I hope so, because that nice house will require upkeep, and the occasional refinance, and that creates jobs for others. Ditto on their cars, and the kids’educations, job/opportunity creators all. And if they are anything like most conservatives, they will most likely donate to a charity or two, and at a higher overall level than their liberal-minded friends, if recent studies are to be believed. That’s how they would be treated in a ‘CaptFlood’ society.
In an ‘Obama’ society, their 250K+ income makes them ‘targets’ for government-sponsored theft, and income that should have generated earned (the key word here) opportunity for others will be skimmed off the top and doled out by an increasingly autocratic and self-interested government. A goverment whose motives have more to do with vote perpetuation and keeping as large a segment of the population as posible dependent on them for their every need than with anything the Founding Fathers ever envisioned.
CaptFlood on March 2, 2009 at 11:38 PM
And it’s all Rush’s fault that the left is successfully driving this wedge then?
AUINSC on March 2, 2009 at 11:43 PM
So what?
It’s not a problem if they don’t sell.
They should have refinanced before that or not signed the papers in the first place.
One is told at closing that the rate will go up, you know.
The economy will never stabilize as long as Ogabe keeps trying to “cure” it with is Socialist pork-laden, tax-dependent programs.
You can’t reduce any debt, including the national debt, if the economy’s tanking.
The more Big Government leaves it alone, the better it will do.
Our first mistake was to pass TARP, then Porkulus 1.
No more bailouts–they’re not working anyway.
NObama needs to enact tax cuts–personal, corporate, capital gains and inheritance–maybe even a moratorium on same.
Then he needs to bag all talk of new spending, new programs and new taxes like cap & trade.
Start from scratch. Pretend like he never gave that SOTU.
Go back to the drawing board.
And he must tell the American people that together, doing our thing, we can bring the country back to recovery and that the “crisis” isn’t a crisis after all, except for being a crisis of confidence.
One of FDR’s “Four Freedoms” was the Freedom from Fear and that is the one we need the most now.
Jenfidel on March 2, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Please enlighten us, then. Lay out those causes of social inequity, and tell us how much of a free man’s labor must be seized by the government before it can be corrected. We just blew a cool trillion bucks on every program the noble Democrat Party could conceive of to reward their favored constituencies. Was that enough? Are we halfway there, and would another trillion bucks do it?
Why are the groups and neighborhoods that receive the most government largesse in the worst shape? The neighborhood Obama “organized” is like Lebanon with a rickety $150,000 gazebo perched in the middle. How can there still be social inequalities in a neighborhood that enjoyed the personal love and attention of America’s greatest president?
Is blindly throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at these social problems, implemented with bills no one reads, after allowing only a couple of days for study and debate, the “mature” approach? Why don’t we seize all the assets of everyone making over $100k per year (except, of course, for duly ordained members of the Democrat Party nomenklatura) and give those funds to President Obama to cure all these social ills? That would be even more “mature.”
Maybe this is the kind of impertinent point that comes as a natural result of my blindness and immaturity, but it seems to me that it’s much easier to suppose that all poor people are helplessly trapped in their unfortunate circumstances, economically immobile and requiring entitlement handouts to survive, than to grapple with the concept of a “perfect meritocracy” or maintain a society that values opportunity above entitlement. The economist Thomas Sowell, mentioned by some posters above, has done extensive work demonstrating that a very small percentage of the population remains permanently fixed in a single income bracket for their entire lives… but, he probably lacks your intellectual maturity, and therefore misinterpreted his data.
Doctor Zero on March 2, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Tough language there. Let me just tackle your points first:
First, not all rich evade their taxes. Some truly believe in the common good and pay what they are supposed to. Some look for as many deductions as possible. Others simply don’t pay at all.
As for helping the kid, a wealthier person should have MORE of an incentive to help him/her than I do. You would have a HEALTHIER, MORE EDUCATED, and MORE PRODUCTIVE workforce if those very people had access to healthcare, a decent education that is affordable, and energy costs that they could afford.
Imagine, instead of half of the people in our workforce dropping out of college because they can’t afford it, you would have over 95% of people educated.
How POWERRFUL would America be then?
EVERYONE BENEFITS when people have wider access to education and healthcare.
ckoeber on March 2, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Hey, I just want to thank herr uber-gruppen-fieldmarschall clusterfooken von politikingenius Steele for managing to get Rush’s very profound and eloquent remarks off the front page so the Dems could take over the narrative after having nearly lost it there for a few minutes! Great work, dildo.
I wish I didn’t want to comment here anymore, so I could tell Mr. Steele, and Mr. Frum, and their kindred spirits what I really think of them!
drunyan8315 on March 2, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Who owns my work, me or the governing authority.
Saltysam on March 2, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Excellent! I knew I scammed my way out of the system by getting a 3.8 GPA and going to American University by working full time while taking on a full set of credits.
YES! Thanks DFCtomm. You figured me out.
Sarcasm aside, that is not what I am arguing. Giving people ACCESS to healthcare is not giving someone a garunteed outcome. Giving ACCESS to quality education does not give someone a garunteed outcome.
Merely, it gives them a shot that you may have had. Everyone points to someone’s struggle for basic necessities of life as if that’s a good thing. For people who have the basics of life already, hey, that’s life.
The progressive’s goal is not to level each and every obstacle. Our goal is to make the most basic fundamental things that EVERYONE needs available to that person.
It still is the CHOICE of that individual to take the opportunity given and make something of it.
ckoeber on March 2, 2009 at 11:55 PM
A good deal of us pay because if you don’t, you either pay huge fines or go to JAIL. (Ask Wesley Snipes.)
Secondly, we pay not for the “common good” but because it’s the law and because we expect our government to carry out certain basic functions the primary one being defending us from enemies, foreign and domestic.
If the “common good” is to keep us alive and safe, that would cover it.
We do not pay taxes so that the government can be our collective Nanny.
There would be a lot more charitable giving if we paid less taxes and were allowed better deductions for charitable giving.
We’d all be healthier, more educated and productive if these things are a “given,” but they’re not.
Since Adam was thrown out of the Garden of Eden, Mankind has had to work by the sweat of his brow.
There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch or TANSTAAFL.
100% should be educated–we’ve thrown BILLIONS at education.
We’re the lone superpower as it is, chump!
Our government was never set up to provide either education or healthcare and it should stop doing so immediately.
As President Reagan so eloquently said, the worst words you’ll ever hear are, “We’re from the Federal Government and we’re here to help.”
You want your Socialist paradise, go to Cuba–they’d love to have you!
Jenfidel on March 2, 2009 at 11:55 PM
You’re just nothing but a stinking Communist.
Jenfidel on March 2, 2009 at 11:56 PM
See that sounds good in principle – but do you have a tenable financial plan? In terms of who pays for that? Also, it sounds good to have a society where all people are college graduates. But, realistically speaking, as many others have mentioned here before, that just reduces the value of your degree. Not everyone can be an engineer or an architect, right?
peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Wonderful story. Thanks for sharing, INC, and to answer your implied question, I do care.
There are many lessons that can be learned from this story. But perhaps the most important of all is self-preserverence.
Explain to me how a more conservative government could have helped him when he was younger?
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 12:00 AM
I think that students like you should be required to give up a portion of that GPA to other students whose GPAs were lower to help give them a leg up when they look for their first job.
It’s not fair that you have that advantage during a job interview.
Saltysam on March 3, 2009 at 12:04 AM
It’s not the government’s job to “help people;” the government only makes sure that our inalienable rights are preserved and protected, the chief one being our freedom of self-determination.
You have proposed that this right be abrogated and subverted to be “guided” by the government from cradle to grave to promote the “common good” of the “less fortunate” and paid for by…whom, exactly?
The more “lucky?”
That ephemeral group known as the “richest 2%?”
Who???
Jenfidel on March 3, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Ahh, FloatingRock. Kept you waiting, huh.
The frame of this pro-choice/pro-life debate is UTTERLY incorrect.
The true question is how does society minimize the amount of unintended pregnancies?
Once a child is in society someone generally needs to step up to the plate and take care of the child. Instead of the debate being about the life of the unborn (that is unwanted in one way or another) how about avoiding that situation all-together. THAT is what Obama has been arguing this whole time.
That is thr RIGHT question. This whole pro-life/pro-choice debate is designed to be devisive and SPLIT people.
As for liberty, I do support the concept of liberty, but there are multiple facets. One item that is generally confused is when one person’s version of liberty impedes the other.
I know you are most likely pulling the definition to support conservatism but I can justly argue that progressives are actually acting out the definition more clearly than conservatives.
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 12:06 AM
When do you think we’ll achieve that “stabilized economy?” Dow 2,000? Or is that even a bit high?
You deserve respect for the intensity of your beliefs and the amount of honest effort you’ve put in arguing here, CK, but I think you’re still missing the point of an economy, and the moral and practical cases for allowing it to run as freely as possible. You’ve cited things like “cleaning up the environment,” providing unemployment benefits, and offering low tuition rates as things you believe would help the economy improve, but you’re putting the cart before the horse. Those things cannot happen without a strong economy driving them, and when a free market economy is strong, it invariably *does* provide such benefits.
Consider the environment. I’m sure you would not dispute the environmental condition of the United States has vastly improved since the 1970s, and it improved the most in precisely those periods of the most explosive economic growth. To see utter environmental devastation, you must look to precisely the sort of collectivist economies that Obama seems to want to emulate. If central planning and government control of industry produces environmental health, then why isn’t Russia an emerald paradise?
It is the great intellectual challenge of capitalism to understand that this is not a paradox, but rather a logical outcome of the incentives built into each system. A collectivist economy is too poor and stagnant to protect its environment; its people are too busy trying to survive to celebrate Earth Day. A capitalist protects the environment because it is in his interest to do so, and because the voters in his country – also known as “his customers” – demand it. Are you old enough to remember the big deforestation scare of the 80s? That didn’t come to much, did it? And it turned out to be much ado about nothing precisely because those who own a forest have the greatest incentive and interest to protect and nurture it. Want to see some really atrocious despoiling of the environment? Go anywhere in the American west where leftist “environmentalists” have gained political control. Look behind those forest fires and mudslides, and often as not, you’ll find a bunch of confused Greenpeace activists wondering what just happened.
Certainly a government must exist to exercise regulations over the participants in a free market, but this always exists in a continuum; I doubt we will ever live under either iron fascism or lasseiz-faire capitalism. If the government’s involvement in the private economy is kept to a minimum, investment and innovation are the result, and the amount of true wealth generated provides the resources to attend to the social goals you’ve expressed concerns about. In a system of compulsion, no one gives anywhere near 100%, because they have no reason to, and if by chance they should achieve excellence, it will simply be taken from them. In a system of competition, it is true that some will inevitably fall into the lowest income brackets, often through no fault of their own – but at the other end of the scale, there are people giving 150%, taking risks, and achieving things that were once thought to be impossible. It is their achievements that fuel the overall advancement in the quality of life. The poorest Americans find themselves with fewer dollars, but those dollars can do incalculably more to raise their quality of life.
Even if we found a person to use as an example of your belief that the poorest Americans are trapped in their poverty, his life story would only go to buttress my point. He might have the same paltry income he had in 1980 – but today, that income will buy him medicines that didn’t exist back then, his surroundings are unquestionably cleaner, the quality of his food is better (so much so that even the poor of 2009 battle an obesity epidemic)… and if he has children, they have a machine in their house, or at their school, that puts the collected knowledge of the human race at their fingertips. Go to a hospital, or an electronics store, or visit an industrial farm. Precious few of the things you see there have been created by collectivist societies. Almost all of the things you see were, in fact, invented in the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave. Bravery is required to make the best use of freedom.
Doctor Zero on March 3, 2009 at 12:07 AM
For that to be true, 95% would have had to have attended college in the first place. That’s nowhere near the case. Some people simply don’t wish to go to college, and there is a place in our society for them as well, especially if we stop illegal immigration and lower the cost of doing business in America to reduce the incentive for corporations to ship low skilled jobs overseas to remain competitive. And if later in life such a person wishes to further their education, they can do that as well. America does not have a static class structure as did many of history’s socialist and communist societies before their fall.
FloatingRock on March 3, 2009 at 12:07 AM
I support Liberty, for reals.
Saltysam on March 3, 2009 at 12:09 AM
To Ckoeber, I have only a couple of questions and I have asked them in the past but none of the “progressives” ever answer. First one is how is BHO going to succeed in his programs when Brezhnev and Gorbachev failed? As for dissent there is plenty in the conservative camp as you or someone previously stated that the GOP eats its young. I find its almost impossible to be pro-life in the Demo party and why is that? Another question is if you tax to death all the job providers, where will all the revenue come from? There must be incentives to hire people rather then burden them with more regulations.
garydt on March 3, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Who owns my labor, me or the governing authority?
Saltysam on March 3, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Ah, you poor, deluded fool. Just keep telling yourself that.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 3, 2009 at 12:17 AM
As someone posted on another HA thread: Oprah did ok for herself. Chris (Persuit of Happyness) Gardner. Andrew Carnegie.
TN Mom on March 3, 2009 at 12:17 AM
You do, and progressives have never argued otherwise.
What we ask is that you realize that (1) generally your work, even if you worked completely independantly, was made possible by others of society, (2) that YOU benefit from helping others with your work via the taxes paid, and (3) that more people can purchase and benefit from your work if they are equipped to do so (with the right education, healthcare, and living standards).
On top of that, we are not arguing that we do away with the rich. On the contrary, we are enabling all to have the same opportunity to advance. They still need to do the work.
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 12:20 AM
LOL!
Yeah, that’s why they spend so much time worrying about the future influence of conservative ideology on the body politic.
Saltysam on March 3, 2009 at 12:20 AM
In other words, you’re not going to answer the question directly. I’m going to make an educated guess and assume you are pro-choice, am I right?
This answer fails to acknowledge an important factor in unwanted pregnancies: the human condition. This cannot be avoided without evolutionary change, genetic engineering or perhaps forced drug therapy.
It is impossible to “design” a debate of this nature.
Now you wish to redefine “liberty”, but are unclear how you would do so. So how would you redefine it? You can use Websters definition as a basis for your argument.
But then, on the other hand, you don’t seem to support life, and you wish to redefine liberty to suit the needs of your ideology—so my last question is, do you truly support the pursuit of happiness, or would it be limited by the competing interests of an authoritarian government?
FloatingRock on March 3, 2009 at 12:21 AM
Doctor Zero on March 2, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Doctor Zero on March 3, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Kisses, DZ. You should have your own blog. Or, better yet, if you don’t already do this, please go on a lecture tour. Our country needs you. Thank you,
Entelechy on March 3, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Not pissed, just aware of your ignorance of what “invoking the name of God in vain” means for those who take Scripture seriously, and your indifference to the feelings and beliefs of others. I would spend time explaining what is so insulting and blasphemous about what you did, but it’s obvious you don’t care.
BTW, “blaspheme” means to “speak of in an irreverent or impious manner.” If you can’t learn Scripture, I hope you can at least learn English.
TMK on March 3, 2009 at 12:25 AM
BTW, the definition of “liberty” was from my Websters II dictionary that I’ve been using since th 80’s. It’s the first and only source for a definition that I checked. I didn’t use it to support conservatism, although it does, only to find out if you truly support the concept.
FloatingRock on March 3, 2009 at 12:27 AM
If they were capable of logic, they would not be marxist losers wanting to have ‘the authorities’ take from their hard working neighbors to give to them.
LegendHasIt on March 3, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Ah, the liberal mind. Where one event is a trend, and two events is the End of Time..
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 3, 2009 at 12:30 AM
So everything you just said, including taxes, would be voluntary, then?
FloatingRock on March 3, 2009 at 12:31 AM
“Progressives?” Don’t you mean Communists?
You are Wesley Mouch from Ayn Rand! Wow!
Who’s “we” by the way? And how are you “asking?”
“We ask that you realize that your work …was made possible by others…”
This is so staggeringly Communist and so astonishingly un-American that I can’t believe you’d let it slip out in this forum.
It’s very blatant Collectivist ideology at its finest.
On top of that, we are not arguing that we do away with the rich. On the contrary, we are enabling all to have the same opportunity to advance. They still need to do the work.
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Again, who’s “we?” Are you speaking for the Obama Administration?
No doubt, you need the rich to do the work–in your Communist Distopia, somebody has to, to support your LOOTERS.
Jenfidel on March 3, 2009 at 12:32 AM
I am surprised others haven’t answered it.
For the first question, that’s easy. Barack Obama is not pursuing the same programs. You assume what he seeks is communism/socialism but in reality he is simply pursuing a way to reduce the cost of healthcare, education, and energy. Adding a viable option by the government drastically reduces the cost of a private option. The US Postal Service is an excellent example. UPS and DHL COMPETE with the government and EVERYONE benefits.
As for pro-life/pro-choice debate, I would agree that there is too much litmus testing in politics. That is why Obama has argued that the FRAME OF DEBATE is wrong. Why argue pro-life or pro-choice when you should be arguing about how to reduce unintended pregnancies?
You will notice that most agree, reducing unintended pregnancies via policies that favor marriage, increased education, etc. is a far better standpoint than the devisive pro-choice/pro-life debate.
“Taxing the job-providers” is an incorrect standpoint, but I will go along with your frame of mind. These “job-providers” want the best possible applicant pool yet they are not willing to pay for the costs of getting them. How can you have qualified applicants when these applicants are uneducated and unhealthy? The taxes that are put in place by Barack Obama is nominal compared to the benefit the entire society (including those “job-providers”) gets.
More people healthy and educated means a far more sustainable economy.
Those “job-providers” sell something. Who is going to pay for it?
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 12:32 AM
Reformatted, reposted:
Again, who’s “we?” Are you speaking for the Obama Administration?
No doubt, you need the rich to do the work–in your Communist Distopia, somebody has to, to support you LOOTERS.
Jenfidel on March 3, 2009 at 12:34 AM
RR was responding to Jim, who talked dismissively of the Christian “fairy tale.” See the quote?
Since it was actually Jim who brought religion into the discussion, I presume you would like to redirect your comments to him specifically…
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 3, 2009 at 12:36 AM
That’s a cop out. Reality exists. The human condition exists. Where do you stand on reality?
FloatingRock on March 3, 2009 at 12:40 AM
Very nice rehashing of conservative talking points. I appreciated the obligatory Sowell reference at the end too.
crr6 on March 3, 2009 at 12:40 AM
None of these are within the proper purview of the federal government.
Overreach, expensive, unnecessary and unaffordable in this economy.
Obama’s not trying to reduce unintended pregnancies, except by abortion.
This is such complete horsesh!t and so divorced from any viable economic system that I wonder if even you believe it.
More people healthy and educated means a far more sustainable economy.
Let the free market decide that, as it always has.
The minute the federal government gets out of the private market, the sooner we’ll be on the road to economic recovery.
You can ignore me, but someone here is going to keep slapping your collectivist, Communist crap down, I can assure you!
And cut the “we” BS–the only posting here is you.
You can only speak for yourself and not some mysterious “we.”
Jenfidel on March 3, 2009 at 12:41 AM
You are probably right. The fifty year plan of Bulganin and Kruschev to have America fall from within by breeding lazy, marx indoctrinated fools is finally coming to full fruition.
Again, you are correct. Not only for the reason I gave above, but because of tens of millions of illegal aliens further adding to the numbers of the anti-conservative.
The real reason you don’t want us to go away is that you will freeze and/or starve to death without the producers to supply you looters needs.
Again true… 0bama and your other rulers will be able to totally destroy the means of production for the foreseeable future much faster than we can repair them.
I hope you are looking forward as well to living in an impoverished third world country. ’cause that’s what you are going to get, barring an absolute miracle of conservative resurgence.
LegendHasIt on March 3, 2009 at 12:43 AM
If this is typical of your contributions here, let’s drop Crr6 and keep ckoeber. At least CKoeber provides arguments to which we can respond.
FloatingRock on March 3, 2009 at 12:45 AM
Per my first comment it is the truth. No one, period, can argue that their accomplishments were COMPLETELY of their own making. To say so would be to assume the role of God.
Whether you knew it or not, someone helped you in your accomplishments. In 99.9999999% there are many people and laws that help you (as a matter of fact, helping you right now) achieve your goals.
Progressives simply recognize that fact and create work to create policies that helps everyone achieve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
As for your second comment, everyone needs to pitch in. What is important to understand is that you are still free to pursue whatever it is you want to pursue and to keep your justly deserved returns on your work. The taxes levied are simply to enable others to have the ability to achieve thier goals as well.
There is no utopia. We recognize that. What we can do is make policies and programs that provide the most good while doing the least amount of harm to everyone.
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Plankton fool, you will deserve every shackle which will enslave you. You don’t deserve to be free. May your wish be upon you.
Gnats are indignant.
Entelechy on March 3, 2009 at 12:48 AM
You sure about that?
It’s like being taken verbally on Mao’s Long (forced) March!
To be honest, I’ve never seen anyone talk like him outside the pages of Ayn Rand’s books.
Really spooky stuff!
Have the Looters taken over so soon?
Jenfidel on March 3, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Steele has to learn to not get himself trapped into agreeing with the other side’s criticisms of his party. Sometimes, you just have to say, “No. That’s not the case at all.”
He has handled some things well, though. Even in this incident, he did a great job of making the point that the liberal side was hypocritical, by asking how much they wanted Bush to succeed.
Better to stick with him for the next year. He screwed up this time, but resigning at this point would broadcast that Rush is some sort of demigod. Which is of course ridiculous. Rush just happens to be right, 98.7% of the time.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 3, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Well Okobter, I hope you are right in your assessment, but I have my doubts. I would not be surprized if total dissent is brought in and what companies we do have will try and leave the nation. I have no great love for mega companies but most jobs are from small businesses. Just look at Ford, GM and Chrysler. I hope the foreign makers will keep their plants here and not withdraw. Furthermore you will have floods of immigrants legal and illegal as the Mexican troubles erupt and there is no opposition to control the borders. I have not heard any demo and very few GOP who want to control the borders there as every nation in the world controls their borders. Thanks for the answers because hardly any other ones do.
garydt on March 3, 2009 at 12:50 AM
That’s the classical philosophical difference. The liberal assumption is that the benefit of the society comes by forcing successful people to pay for the benefits of less successful ones. The difference lies in the axioms, once you believe in the axioms, the theorems are consistent.
It’s a crazy dream of mine to come up with a theoretical model of human society based off of these axioms. Add to that some weighted probability distributions, and we have a kick-ass software.
peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 12:51 AM
Using His name in vain, yes. Your Catholic school education probably mentioned that part.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 3, 2009 at 12:52 AM
crr6 used to be the claimed “intellectual”. Arrogance has taken over his/her brain. Sad.
Nah, they’re just trying to demoralize steely souls, not realizing that they’d starve if they’d succeed. Their gnat-brains don’t realize that killing the cow will cut off the
milkcash supply.Entelechy on March 3, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Steele is jelly.
As in fish.
We need someone with clarity and a backbone.
Not an Obama clone with an R instead of a D.
profitsbeard on March 3, 2009 at 12:53 AM
It’s all right to have a disagreement as long as the air is cleared and we can move on from there. Michael and Rush will both be stronger for it; we need to give both our support because we have a common enemy, Liberal Fascism…
DL13 on March 3, 2009 at 12:53 AM
That was the most awesome statement ever. +1,000,000
mauipundit on March 3, 2009 at 12:55 AM
Case considered. They are viewed the same in both a conservative society and an “Obama” society (wow, you give the man his own society. Can I have one too :) )
In your society, the quality of life for the husband and his wife would actually DIMINISH. Why? Because if there is little regulation inevitably we will have Maddoffs taking those “wise” investments, companies polluting the environment around them, and companies otherwise trying to take the couple’s money.
Then, that help with the “upkeep” that you mentioned would slowly deteriorate in quality because the hired help can’t afford his medical bills (remember, no regulation so insurance companies and hospitals can charge whatever they want or run all kinds of schemes).
The couple cannot survive in your society. There will be a subset of your scenario out for everyone’s destruction for their own personal benefit.
That is why progressives say we need balance. The couple as well as everyone around them can thrive.
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 12:58 AM
At first blush when I read Steele’s apology to Rush in a cursory fashion I said, “Great, let’s move on and give Steele a second chance,.”
However, now after taking a second look at the apology I’m not so sure. Three things are troubling: that it took Steele 2 days to summon up the gumption to confess he was wrong. that he had to review the tape to determine that he misspoke, almost implying he had an out-of-body experience in excoriating Rush, that his words did not match up with his thought patterns, and that he was primarily concerned about ‘offending’ Rush and that he would never knowingly hurt someone else’s feelings, and that his job’ was to bring people together’ which sounds so ‘liberal’ and Democratic in attitude.
Consistently Rush has said that he does not give anybody the power to offend him and that feelings do not impact his core beliefs and principles and ethics he lives by. Thus Steele may be aplogizing for the wrong reason.
technopeasant on March 3, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Doctor Zero on March 3, 2009 at 1:00 AM
I am glad you have started talking about balance. Any political philosophy taken to an extreme can have negative consequences. I emphasize on *any*.
peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 1:02 AM
LOL. Beware my comrade Jenfidel! I have called Stalin and he too agrees:
You must be sent to Siberia at once!
Are you serious? This whole notion that Obama or the progressives are communist is just plain old and tired.
Under your train of though you guys are facists.
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 1:02 AM
Even if what you say is true, how is this the government’s business? The government doesn’t produce anything, people do. And even if we’re to assume that the government did play a role, our government was intended by the founding fathers to serve us, not the other way around. It is of and for the people, at our behest, so it would still be a matter to be settled between free peoples, not an undeserved reward collected by an authoritarian government. And this is besides the point that the entire concept of collectivism is a contrivance invented by Marxists, (and Internet pirates). And that’s not hyperbole. Look it up.
FloatingRock on March 3, 2009 at 1:03 AM
Seriously, what’s with the “we”? That is so strange. Are you royalty or something?
FloatingRock on March 3, 2009 at 1:05 AM
So, no enlightenment, then? Pity. Or did you just type it in very small letters at the top of your vacuous two-sentence waste of bandwidth?
Glad I could bring you some happiness by reminding you of Dr. Sowell’s work. I’m sure your own achievements tower over his, but you might find some of his work interesting. He had a very cushy life in which everything was handed to him, but he still managed to rouse himself from his overstuffed wing chair at the gentleman’s club to write a book or two.
Doctor Zero on March 3, 2009 at 1:06 AM
Excellent rebuttal.
I am getting tired so I can’t argue this right now. Since most people don’t look at old posts for replies I’ll refute this on another comment trail tomorrow.
Later, fun debating.
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 1:07 AM
I’m estimating Obama will be unstoppable in 2009. The hangover begins in 2010.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 3, 2009 at 1:08 AM
As mentioned, gotta sleep. Fun debating.
I’ll disprove you guys tomorrow.
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 1:09 AM
No doubt.
Old and tired to whom? Not to me!
Obama lives it every day as do his apologists like you.
That’s why the market is tanking–they know a Commie when they see one.
Whoops! Sorry! Your people have the lock on that, too.
Seizing control of every institution of this country, as Obama has proposed to do, is Fascist as well as Communist.
Hitler set up National SOCIALISM.
Fascism is just another form of Socialism with a nice paternalistic figurehead and a ruling oligarchy that says things like “We ask…”
There’s nothing Fascist in the least about the Republican party!
And why are you pushing Collectivist Communism on a thread about Rush?
(I’m sure he’d be amused, but…)
Jenfidel on March 3, 2009 at 1:11 AM
Probably an actual 0fficial 0bama Administration Propagandist. Rather than relying on the random amateur, ineffective marxist troll that we have dealt with here previously, they are putting in the paid professionals who are trained in debate and more expert at revisionist history.
LegendHasIt on March 3, 2009 at 1:11 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 Next »